Recent comments on applications from Inner West Council (Leichhardt), NSW

  1. In Lilyfield NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 282 Balmain Road Lilyfield NSW 2040:

    Natalie Lovett commented

    282 Balmain Rd has exceeded their living space with the request for a new garage and underground space, it should not be approved.

  2. In on “Demolition of remaining...” at Development Lot 1-13 Parramatta Road Annandale NSW 2038:

    Liz Scott commented

    It's nice that something will finally be going up there. I'm worried about parking though. I live nearby, and parking is extremely difficult to find for residents nearly all the time. Most of the cars that are consistently parked in the area all day have business permits, which means that the residents have to park hundreds of metres away. If the same thing is going to happen to this development then the situation will get even worse. Can we either increase the on site parking hugely, or can council change their policy on handing out business permits.

  3. In on “Demolition of remaining...” at Development Lot 1-13 Parramatta Road Annandale NSW 2038:

    Alexander S Beattie commented

    To whom it may concern, I feel this development project does not provide sufficient parking for its proposed size. Given the proposal to include three and two bedroom apartments and commercial suites, the provsion of parking will barely meet residential occupant demand let alone that of commercial and or other visitors. Assuming that some apartment's owners will have 1-2 vehicles this would easily exhaust the proposed allocation and thus rely on surroundings streets for parking. Residing in the area, I already see the stress that local businesses add to off street parking resources as the generous provision by council of Business permits sees my street and surrounding often at or often over capacity during the week. The introduction of new residents with inadequate parking facilities would add to this problem and therefore I ask that the parking allocation be reconsidered for this development to match its size.

    I also strongly believe that the restoration of the original facade or similar would greatly improve the streetscape and add to the area and the appeal of the development. The destruction of heritage buildings through developers should not go unnoticed, albeit not the action of the interested developer, I feel that the recreatioon of the original streetscape would be a nod of respect to the past while encorporating the new.

  4. In Leichhardt NSW on “Residential redevelopment...” at 40-76 William Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Peter Gillard commented

    This proposal is massive overdevelopment of this site.

    The LEP dictates a FSR of 0.5 :1. Council Planning staff indicated the only way this could be exceeded would be for the proposnet to adaptively reuse the building.

    The concept design documents show that the proponent is pretending to adaptively reuse the building by maintaining the street facades, in reality the proposal is to build a new apartment complex behind and particularly above the existing facades. It is for much more than 3500m2 of livable area. (Site area is about 7000m2). I can't find a reference in the documents but the proposed FSR must be 2 to 2.5!

    They are proposing 186 one, two and three bedroom units! The carpark access appears to be off Francis St, using the same driveway I and my neighbours need to use to access our garages! I think traffic lights will be required. The noise of cars arriving and departing all day and night will be intolerable. The carpark is to be constructed in two basement levels, both below the low point on the flood affected site!

    The architects have picked the highest points on the various street facades and used that to justify very tall structures across the site. At the eastern boundary (adjacent to us) the ground is much lower (immediately outside our bedroom!). The building proposed to be constructed about 9m from my boundary is three complete floors taller than our house and taller than the current building. It might be hidden from William St but this building will massively overlook our house (along with our neighbours). residents on upper floors will be able to watch us eat at the kitchen table! Balconies are positioned looking directly at our bedroom windows!

    I am very disappointed that, given the scale of the proposal, Council didn't immediately engage with potentially affected residents. It would seem that the developer is trying to use the pre DA process to negotiate a position with council without council having the benefit of the community's views.

    What is proposed is not adaptive reuse, it is a modern apartment complex being disguised by the existing William St Facade.

    I am not opposed to the development of the site. However, the developer needs to play by the rules. A 0.5FSR, if they are going to build a new apartment complex (as proposed). Or they need to use and stay inside the current walls and under the roof heights of the existing building if they wish to go down the adaptive reuse route.

    The current level of amenity and privacy of existing residents needs to be maintained.

    The site is clearly not large enough to accomodate the 186 units (337 bedrooms) proposed.

  5. In Annandale NSW on “PCA - SPC Certifiers - Ph:...” at 187 Annandale Street Annandale NSW 2038:

    Lis Moye commented

    Does the proposer realise there isa water shortage which is only going to get worse. Hopefully the energy associated with cleaning, filtration, etc will be from renewables.
    While the rest of us try to reduce our water usage, have to water our gardens with watering cans or not at all, an I ground pool is profligate.

    A lifestyle decision which is as selfish as unnecessary.
    How many public swimming pools are within within an 8 km radius.

  6. In Leichhardt NSW on “Residential redevelopment...” at 40-76 William Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Megan Forgus commented

    The development at this site needs to take into account the generally low density domestic houses and town houses in the area. Other than the building to be developed the surrounding area is suburban without any significant commercial development. Important factors are:
    - the height on the eastern site of the building needs to take into account the 5 windows on the western wall of the existing Cyclops building that are critical for light and ventilation
    - any assessment of the impact to traffic and transport must take into account the yet to be developed Epicure site on Allen St of 139 additional apartments yet to be absorbed by the small road network or light rail
    - the property is bounded by North St to the west which is essentially a one lane street, completely congested at all times, the overflow going to Elswick St where the recently refurbished St Columba primary school will be negatively impacted by traffic and parking overflow from the new development
    - to the east of the site Francis St is a no through road forcing any additional traffic back into the William St corridor
    - William St intersection with Norton St is the entry point into the network of the buses from Leichhardt bus station already creating significant congestion
    - Darley St further to the north does not cope well with peak hour congestion and will be stretched by the addition of 139 apartments at Epicure, let alone 186 more households which is the scale of the current proposal
    - the Light Rail is also already at risk of loosing its reputation that so enhances Leichhardt given its inabilility to deal with current capacity let alone cope with these additional developments at Leichardt North, Hawthorn Canal, Taverners Hill and the increased density of development at Summer Hill
    I am not against the development of the site, it is just the scale & density that is concerning. 187 apartments in the current footprint given the surrounding area and road capacity is too many

  7. In Rozelle NSW on “Change of Use - No building...” at 657 Darling Street Rozelle NSW 2039:

    A Chance commented

    There is absolutely no detail on what the proposed change of use will be!!!
    Surely this flies in the face of planning application mgmt???😡

  8. In Leichhardt NSW on “Residential redevelopment...” at 40-76 William Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Nick Viner commented

    My main concerns are with parking for a development of this scale. On a small 2 lot subdivision at 9 Thornely Street, Leichhardt, I asked Council why it had approved 2 new dwellings with NO PARKING. There used to be a driveway at the old house at 9 Thornley Street with parking for 2 cars so 2 car spaces have just been deleted. This is on a street one block from Norton Street, one block from Parramatta Road and with a Pre-School facility further down the street. I'd hazard a guess that the new occupants will bring at least 2 - 4 additional cars to the street when they move in and there is nowhere for these cars to be parked. Council's reply to me was,

    "Council's controls seek to reduce the reliance on private vehicles to minimise traffic. The controls do not require new dwellings to provide car parking. The site is within the Parking scheme area and the new dwellings will not benefit from the scheme."

    Whilst I absolutely agree that reliance on cars must be greatly reduced, I fail to see how, in the absence of any significant investment in public transport, there can be a direct correlation between providing no parking and reducing reliance on private vehicles? People will continue to use their cars but parking will become an absolute nightmare. Why should Leichhardt residents put up with the continued destruction of their amenity by having their streets clogged with more and more cars? And a lack of parking in our suburb impacts upon the shops and local businesses too.

    I fear that Council's plans are just to encourage as much development as possible with as little parking as possible whilst trying to justify their flawed vision which makes no sense to the average person.

    186 units = potentially 186 or more additional cars.

  9. In Leichhardt NSW on “Residential redevelopment...” at 40-76 William Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Terri Wilson commented

    This is simply over development.
    Yes develop but not to this extent. You cannot get on the light rail at peak times. As for more cars and yes people will gave cars, this will cause more traffic woes in the area.

  10. In Leichhardt NSW on “Residential redevelopment...” at 40-76 William Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Noeleen Liapis commented

    I would like to agree with all comments made by others. How much parking is to be allocated for each apartment and their visitors? Will there be off street parking for deliveries? Will there be extra public transport options made for the huge influx of people into an area already bursting at the seams. Are there enough school places for an overnight addition of school age children? I believe there needs to be a lot more information about the proposed development before it is approved.

  11. In Balmain NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 35 Waterview Street Balmain NSW 2041:

    Pamela Springate commented

    There is no thought for neighbours or street facade with the huge ugly plan proposed.
    The house was built in 1880 and deserves a bit more respect.

  12. In Leichhardt NSW on “Residential redevelopment...” at 40-76 William Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Laura arnott commented

    As a local resident, traffic around the area has been significantly impacted by westconnex and it’s already very hard to get in and out of a Leichhardt via darley road. I don’t disagree with flats being built on this location but ask the council to consider traffic And parking impacts when reviewing the proposal. 186 separate dwellings seems overly excessive and will have a material negative impact on current residents.

  13. In Leichhardt NSW on “Residential redevelopment...” at 40-76 William Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Matthew Bowen commented

    Major concern for me is traffic and parking on local streets. In line with comments above, Westconnex has put a standstill to this pocket of Leichhardt due to the new phasing of traffic lights at City West Link. Likewise, parking is already impossible in the surrounding streets, all units would need to have access to sufficient parking that reflects the demands of owners/tenants.

  14. In Balmain NSW on “Replacement of old porous...” at 84 Elliott Street Balmain NSW 2041:

    JJanis commented

    Planning alert for 84 Elliott Street not released- all work approved by Inber West Council

  15. In Leichhardt NSW on “Residential redevelopment...” at 40-76 William Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Justin Simon commented

    Strongly support this development. It’s right next to the light rail so residents’ complaints about traffic and parking are invalid - if it were built anywhere else it would make traffic even worse because the new residents wouldn’t have public transport options. We really need more housing in the inner west.

  16. In Leichhardt NSW on “Residential redevelopment...” at 40-76 William Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Connie Tirabosco commented

    My husband and I have recently moved into the area (William Street) and have been struck by the traffic congestion and the limited opportunities for street parking at virtually any time of the day. Access to the City West Link is slow for many hours each day, even though we are only one street away. We are concerned that a development of the size proposed on the Metro Storage site will severely exacerbate the current traffic problems as well as the already limited parking in the surrounding streets.

    The construction of 186 units is an extraordinarily large number for this site. The amount of excavation to build at least 2 floors of underground parking will be significant and have a direct impact on adjoining properties to the site. If, as indicated on the drawings currently submitted, the William Street roadway is designated a flood affected area, then Council must exercise great care before approving a huge development which could expose residents to flooding in the case of extreme weather events.

    In addition, depending on the height of the development, it will affect the light and general amenity of the adjoining residences.

    We urge Council not to approve a development of the scale proposed.

  17. In Leichhardt NSW on “Residential redevelopment...” at 40-76 William Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Michael Moon commented

    I am a local resident and agree 100% with the concerns raised by Jennifer Aaron and the others above. This area already suffers from significant traffic and parking congestion and this development would exacerbate this to a level that would dramatically reduce the area’s live ability.

  18. In Balmain NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 35 Waterview Street Balmain NSW 2041:

    Marion Gare commented

    Dear Sir
    The owner of this property is planning on “dunny lane” access to enable off street parking. Totally inappropriate. He is already excavating a large trench at rear of property.

    I have not received any plans for this historic home renovation and would appreciate Council advising me of all plans when available for viewing.
    Thank you.
    Marion Hare
    6A Colgate Avenue
    Balmain. 3041

  19. In Balmain NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 35 Waterview Street Balmain NSW 2041:

    Pamela Springate commented

    Was this plan approved by council as there is excavation work being carried out at the rear of the property

  20. In Leichhardt NSW on “Residential redevelopment...” at 40-76 William Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Jennifer Aaron commented

    A proposal of this magnitude in such a high density residential area would be catastrophic.
    Whilst the Pre DA contains little information about the proposed development, the cost specific suggests it will be quite significant.
    Existing parking for residents in William and surrounding streets is almost stretched to capacity. There have been a number of new townhouse built in Elswick St and it appears that like many other residences in the area, they have multiple vehicles in each household.
    Since the expansion of the light rail to Dulwich Hill we now have motorists driving to leichhardt from the western suburbs, parking their cars in our local streets all day to take the light rail into the city, leaving residents sometimes with small children having to park streets away.
    In addition due to the WestCONnex construction parking conditions and restrictions have changed on Darley Road and Lilyfield Road and this will exist for a number of years. This has resulted in boats, trailer and caravans which are regularly parked on both of these streets, now being parked in local streets sometimes for months on end again reducing and limiting the parking opportunities for local residents. In William Street alone there are currently 9 boats and 3 trailers and two camper vans some severely restricting safe visibility for vehicles exiting garages.
    As a result of the lengthy delays on the City West Link from Darley Road, motorists are now rat running local streets trying to reach their destinations and the CWL quicker and this is resulting in a huge bank up of traffic on William Street.
    Should there be a major construction on this site, there would be a further significant impact on traffic flow in local streets. It can take up to 10-15 minutes to get from William Street to the City West Link which is just one street away from the City West Link.
    The iconic Cyclops Toy Factory adjoins the site proposed for development. Depending on the height of the proposed development, the apartments on the western side of the building would loose all of their light and this level of construction would make living in this building unbearable and almost impossible.
    I would ask Council to seriously consider not approving any major development for this site.

  21. In Leichhardt NSW on “Residential redevelopment...” at 40-76 William Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Grania commented

    There are no details setting out traffic management or access to the site and impact on residents close by. 186 units is over extending the capability of the site and bears no consideration on the impact on the already stretched infrastructure. Yes 300m to light rail which is already heavily utilized. No mention of providing car share options with GoGet for example.

  22. In Leichhardt NSW on “Residential redevelopment...” at 40-76 William Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Juliet Cobb commented

    I am concerned that the proposed development will cause even more congestion in an already very congested part of Sydney. Our local roads are full of cars emptied out by (or avoiding) Westconnex. There is competition for street parking already, without adding more apartments and cars. It takes 10 minutes to get out of Leichhardt - either via the City West Link or Paramatta Road or narrow streets via Annandale. This development will result in yet more impact on the quality of life for everyone in nearby streets.

  23. In Leichhardt NSW on “Residential redevelopment...” at 40-76 William Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Jacky Corio commented

    Is it possible to ensure basement parking has
    2 spaces per unit
    visitor parking
    delivery parking

  24. In Leichhardt NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 24 Arthur Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Lis commented

    Why a swimming pool?
    There are water restrictions and energy usage for pools is self indulgent and wasteful.
    Will Council monitor such scarce resource usage?

  25. In Lilyfield NSW on “42 Percival Street...” at 42 Percival Street Lilyfield NSW 2040:

    Anne Connolly commented

    Given the current drought and water restrictions in Sydney and elsewhere, I would like an assurance from Council that the restrictions to filling the pool are carefully monitored.
    If Council are not in a position to enforce these conditions especially the filling of the pool then it needs to work with Sydney Water to do so.

    Fifty percent of the work digging the pool is occurring in 44 Percival so the application should cover both properties

  26. In Birchgrove NSW on “Construction Cert Private...” at 20 Rose Street Birchgrove NSW 2041:

    Michael commented

    The Peninsular’s tree canopy coverage has reduced significantly in the past 10 years.
    Please make approval conditional on a 1 for 1 replacement of removed trees, and guaranteed proof the new trees will be nurtured to full maturity.

  27. In Balmain NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 6 Gow Lane Balmain NSW 2041:

    Dee commented

    Please only approve tree removals if there is a tree replacement plan that’s monitored.

  28. In Balmain NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 6 Gow Lane Balmain NSW 2041:

    Michael commented

    Why do the trees need to be removed?
    Balmain has lost a quarter of its tree canopy area in less than 20 years.
    Please require a 1 for 1 replacement of trees, with a requirement that the new trees be nurtured to maturity.
    thank you

  29. In Birchgrove NSW on “Tree removal.” at 1A Bay Street Birchgrove NSW 2041:

    Dee commented

    Please instigate a 1 for 1 replacement plan for trees in the area.

  30. In Birchgrove NSW on “Tree removal.” at 1A Bay Street Birchgrove NSW 2041:

    michael commented

    Please require another tree to be planted to replace the removed one.

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