Recent comments on applications from Mosman Municipal Council, NSW

  1. In Mosman NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 33A Rangers Avenue, Mosman NSW 2088:

    john wyndham commented

    Our address is 24 Wolseley road, which backs onto Francetti Lane. We are not against this proposal or that proposed for 33 Middle Head Road. However, we have a strong concern that our access to our garage in Francetti Lane, (at the rear of both applications for development of 33 AND 35 Middle Head Road), MUST NOT impede our access to our garage on Francetti Lane. My wife and I are both in our 70s and access to the garage is imperative to our well being.
    We are conscious that with development applications for BOTH addresses being on foot, the chance of obstruction to our garage in Francetti Lane, from building construction vehicles etc, will be possible.
    Therefore would you please insist on these concerns of ours being considered
    in both applications.

  2. In Mosman NSW on “Alteration and addition to...” at 2 Edwards Bay Road, Mosman NSW 2088:

    Janice Robertson commented

    My concern is for the bushcare site next to 2 Edwards bay rd. often when these works are carried out they take liberties and remove native vegetation for a view of for aesthetic reasons. Fines and penalties are very often avoid because they have not been caught in the act. Please make sure the native shrubs and ground covers are not disturbed as this would undermine the good work of the volunteers. I understand the Angophora costata trees are protected however the disturbance of the roots is of concern. There are also blueberry ash trees up against the boundary wall which we fear will be disturbed. I believe making contact with Bushcare volunteers at The Grove would be very much welcomed.

  3. In Mosman NSW on “Demolition of a dwelling...” at 35 Middle Head Road, Mosman NSW 2088:

    John and Elizabeth Wyndham commented

    We are residents of 2/24 Wolseley Road, Mosman....the rear access to our residence is from Francetti Lane....the rear entrance from the Lane is also access to my garage...which backs onto the rear wall of 35 Middle Head Road.

    My wife and I are in our 70s, and this access is vital to our wellbeing.

    I am not lodging an objection to the proposed development...PROVIDED your decision, if an approval, contains a clear and precise provision that my access to my garage remains entirely free and open at ALL times...if cars and trucks are parked across the rear wall of 35 Middle Head Road, my access will be effected badly.

    Thank you for your consideration.

  4. In Mosman NSW on “Development Application -...” at 10 Mistral Avenue, Mosman, NSW:

    Anthony Justice commented

    I am very concerned about this application. To think that a 7 storey apartment block is appropriate on this site is extraordinary. I don't believe this is in keeping with the surrounding area. It will be significantly taller than buildings around it, destroying the skyline and likely blocking light and invading privacy to properties nearby.

    As a resident of Calypso Avenue, I am also very concerned around the volume of traffic that a 7 storey apartment block causes on a narrow and blind access road (Magic Grove). This may just about be adequate for access now, but any increase in traffic down this tight access road is a risk to pedestrians and children in the area. I would like to note that there are already convex mirrors at the access road due to the limited visibility and it cannot be safe to increase traffic volumes to this route which a dwelling of the size proposed would inevitably add.

    I would propose that the development is scaled back significantly before it is approved - the height and residential capacity should not be increased from what exists on the plot at the moment.

  5. In Mosman NSW on “Development Application -...” at 2 - 6A Ourimbah Road, Mosman, NSW:

    Kirsty Freyer commented

    Aveo have an obligation and a legal deed with the owners of Heydon Grove and the upholding of this deed should become part of the councils approval of the DA

  6. In Mosman NSW on “Development Application -...” at 22 Park Avenue, Mosman, NSW:

    Stephen Renneberg commented

    Dear Mosman Council

    I am a near neighbour of this development. I am opposed to it for the following reasons:

    1. It is most definitely not in keeping with the character of this substantial section of the street which is a collection of beautiful old houses.

    2. Constructions of this sort can stretch on for years. This will involve significant excavations and construction which will involve trucks blocking the street. it is a narrow one way street. This means all residents south of this location will have great difficulty leaving their properties. Considering there will also be traffic disruption due to the roundabout at the top of the street, which we desperately need, this additional unnecessary disruption is unwelcome.

    3. All residents bought into this street because it is quiet and already developed. To add several years of noise pollution is an unacceptable imposition on residents. This part of the suburb is a valley and noise tends to echo within its confines, which means large scale noise pollution will affect residents on both sides of Reed Park.

    4. Any construction that digs into or otherwise destabilizes the cliff behind the properties in this area is potentially a safety hazard, to both residents above and below the cliff. Council should carefully consider the extent of its legal liability should residents be injured or property damaged by subsidences of this cliff. Has a thorough engineering study been done of the effects this construction will have on the stability of the cliff.

    5. An addendum to concerns regarding the cliff is the water flow off the cliff. During periods of rainfall, there is an extensive water flow off the cliff. Has an engineering study been undertaken to determine how this construction will affect his waterflow? As this development involves excavation, how will this excavation be drained, during and after construction? What effect will this water hazard have on neighboring properties? Have any studies been done during a period of rain or drought. If drought, then the study is invalid. No work should be undertaken until a study can be done during a period of substantial rainfall.

    6. Parking is very limited in this street. Any new construction which increases the number of dwellings will exacerbate the parking problem. Please consider the congestion this will create.

    Regards

    Stephen Renneberg

  7. In Mosman NSW on “Development Application -...” at 113 Shadforth Street, Mosman, NSW:

    angela bayley commented

    i support the replacement of the balustrades in metal similar to the existing .
    I .do not support replacement in glass as not being in the style of the building,
    Angela Bayley Unit # 14 113 shadforth st.

  8. In Mosman NSW on “Development Application -...” at 175 Ourimbah Road, Mosman, NSW:

    Gail Papilos commented

    In addition to my earlier comment regarding this DA, I intended to make a broader comment beyond the specifics mentioned:

    1. The proposed $1,000,000 plus DA makes no reference to a proposed time line for the upgrade

    2. There appears to be no assessment or reference to additional noise, air or other pollution and/or pollutants

    3. There is no reference to adverse affects and/or effects (physical, environmental, mental etc.) let alone the obvious ongoing and/or side effects to such an undertaking - which it naturally must have

    4. Besides attempting to lift some aspect of its (BP’s) profitability by creating a new cafe (which will then compete with the local cafe up the road and once again have big business take away custom from small business) installing more bowsers and tempting more custom, there does not seem to be a real need to expend one million dollars, which will take a year or more to finalise as a project, creating undue noise pollution and pollution in a general sense, as well as excessive excavation and construction (which will have a negative and ongoing adverse affect and effect on the native plants and animals), there does not seem to be a good reason or basis for the DA to be approved.

    Thank you for your consideration of these concerns.

  9. In Mosman NSW on “Development Application -...” at 175 Ourimbah Road, Mosman, NSW:

    Peter Papilos commented

    In addition to my earlier comment regarding this DA, I intended to make a broader comment beyond the specifics mentioned:

    1. The proposed $1,000,000 plus DA makes no reference to a proposed time line for the upgrade

    2. There appears to be no assessment or reference to additional noise, air or other pollution and/or pollutants

    3. There is no reference to adverse affects and/or effects (physical, environmental, mental etc.) let alone the obvious ongoing and/or side effects to such an undertaking - which it naturally must have

    4. Besides attempting to lift some aspect of its (BP’s) profitability by creating a new cafe (which will then compete with the local cafe up the road and once again have big business take away custom from small business) installing more bowsers and tempting more custom, there does not seem to be a real need to expend one million dollars, which will take a year or more to finalise as a project, creating undue noise pollution and pollution in a general sense, as well as excessive excavation and construction (which will have a negative and ongoing adverse affect and effect on the native plants and animals), there does not seem to be a good reason or basis for the DA to be approved.

    Thank you for your consideration of these concerns.

  10. In Mosman NSW on “Development Application -...” at 175 Ourimbah Road, Mosman, NSW:

    margaret commented

    Totally agree with your comments!
    This proposed development is excessive and out of character with the surrounding land use (residential street).
    The proposed low rise shrubbery is also inappropriate, in line with their purported environmental credentials they should install a hedge of advanced trees which would be more in keeping with the Mosman environs

  11. In Mosman NSW on “Development Application -...” at 175 Ourimbah Road, Mosman, NSW:

    Gail Papilos commented

    To whom it may concern,
    As one of the residents of 169 Ourimbah Road - one of the properties adjacent to 175 Ourimbah Road - I have a significant concern in relation to the following four aspects of the DA:

    1. New Vents
    2. Relocation of existing ice box
    3. Proposed 2x poster board signs (DA05 sign 09)
    4. Proposed new 3.5m high internally illuminated sign (DA05 sign 01)

    I will detail my concerns re: 1-4 in the following paragraphs, however, these concerns in relation to the DA are in addition to my concerns with aspects of the DA which are already included or are to be considered "existing".

    In purchasing this property, we were well aware that we were next to a service station, and that this would come with some noise pollution. Up to this point, there is no argument or problem. The noise pollution which we are able to accept include the following (which related to the 'existing' aspects of the DA):
    a. LPG cage - this is insanely noisy at 9, 10 or 11pm or whenever the truck idles near our bedroom windows and rattles and clanks for up to an hour loading and unloading.
    b. Existing Air/Water - this facility hisses and beeps whether it is being used or not and gets used all hours of the night and day - again, right next to our bedroom windows
    c. While not noted in the DA, there is an AusGrid pole which buzzes and crackles and makes an extraordinarily inordinate amount of noise pollution which I need to contact AusGrid to deal with as it affects no one else and is also directly outside our bedroom window.
    d. The ever-present green glow of the existing signage already permeates our household

    These aspects, which include the fact that trucks will idle for an hour while refilling the tanks, which affect us even though the tanks are on the other side - truck noise is truck noise - are already what we tolerate and accept within the social contract of living next door to a service station.

    To specify my concerns re 1-4, I will now elaborate as mentioned:

    1. New Vents
    My concern is that this will add another incessantly buzzing and crackling facility which will require more trucks to idle and clank as they load and/or refill tanks which itself will probably take place late into the night adding further noise pollution to the already existing and up to this point tolerated noise pollution.

    2. Relocation of Ice Box
    My concern is that this will add yet another incessantly buzzing and crackling facility which require more trucks to idle and clank as they load and/or refill the freezer which itself will take place late into the night exacerbating still further the already high level of noise pollution (which itself will get higher if you take into consideration point 1 (new vents) and this would more than exceed the already tolerated noise pollution.

    3. Proposed 2x poster board signs (DA05 sign 09)
    My concern is that this will add another incessantly buzzing and crackling facility, which not only will further exacerbate the noise pollution as per points 1 and 2, but will also add another level of light pollution which we already tolerate as mentioned in the point above. That there will be two of them, is only evidence that it will not just be more light and noise pollution, but that this will be doubled.

    4. Proposed new 3.5m high internally illuminated sign (DA05 sign 01)
    My concern is that this will add yet another incessantly buzzing and crackling facility which will exacerbate an already intolerable level of light and noise pollution which is being added to a very busy and noisy section of the DA - i.e. all on the one side and this is unreasonable, unfair and totally inappropriate. I recognise that it is 'one side' that will be illuminated, but this is not the aspect with which I have a concern, it is the overall totality of noise and light which in an accumulative sense will go beyond what is tolerable, reasonable, fair and right.

    In conclusion, my concerns have been clearly laid out in numerical order, I have offered context to my concerns and responded to the DA for 175 Ourimbah Road, Mosman. My concerns are significant, they are real and they are legitimate as they will deeply, negatively and materially affect my mental and physical health and wellbeing as well as affect my property.

    Thank you for your consideration and for taking the time to read my submission.

    Cheers,

    Gail Papilos

  12. In Mosman NSW on “Development Application -...” at 175 Ourimbah Road, Mosman, NSW:

    Peter Papilos commented

    To whom it may concern,
    As one of the residents of 169 Ourimbah Road - one of the properties adjacent to 175 Ourimbah Road - I have a significant concern in relation to the following four aspects of the DA:

    1. New Vents
    2. Relocation of existing ice box
    3. Proposed 2x poster board signs (DA05 sign 09)
    4. Proposed new 3.5m high internally illuminated sign (DA05 sign 01)

    I will detail my concerns re: 1-4 in the following paragraphs, however, these concerns in relation to the DA are in addition to my concerns with aspects of the DA which are already included or are to be considered "existing".

    In purchasing this property, we were well aware that we were next to a service station, and that this would come with some noise pollution. Up to this point, there is no argument or problem. The noise pollution which we are able to accept include the following (which related to the 'existing' aspects of the DA):
    a. LPG cage - this is insanely noisy at 9, 10 or 11pm or whenever the truck idles near our bedroom windows and rattles and clanks for up to an hour loading and unloading.
    b. Existing Air/Water - this facility hisses and beeps whether it is being used or not and gets used all hours of the night and day - again, right next to our bedroom windows
    c. While not noted in the DA, there is an AusGrid pole which buzzes and crackles and makes an extraordinarily inordinate amount of noise pollution which I need to contact AusGrid to deal with as it affects no one else and is also directly outside our bedroom window.
    d. The ever-present green glow of the existing signage already permeates our household

    These aspects, which include the fact that trucks will idle for an hour while refilling the tanks, which affect us even though the tanks are on the other side - truck noise is truck noise - are already what we tolerate and accept within the social contract of living next door to a service station.

    To specify my concerns re 1-4, I will now elaborate as mentioned:

    1. New Vents
    My concern is that this will add another incessantly buzzing and crackling facility which will require more trucks to idle and clank as they load and/or refill tanks which itself will probably take place late into the night adding further noise pollution to the already existing and up to this point tolerated noise pollution.

    2. Relocation of Ice Box
    My concern is that this will add yet another incessantly buzzing and crackling facility which require more trucks to idle and clank as they load and/or refill the freezer which itself will take place late into the night exacerbating still further the already high level of noise pollution (which itself will get higher if you take into consideration point 1 (new vents) and this would more than exceed the already tolerated noise pollution.

    3. Proposed 2x poster board signs (DA05 sign 09)
    My concern is that this will add another incessantly buzzing and crackling facility, which not only will further exacerbate the noise pollution as per points 1 and 2, but will also add another level of light pollution which we already tolerate as mentioned in the point above. That there will be two of them, is only evidence that it will not just be more light and noise pollution, but that this will be doubled.

    4. Proposed new 3.5m high internally illuminated sign (DA05 sign 01)
    My concern is that this will add yet another incessantly buzzing and crackling facility which will exacerbate an already intolerable level of light and noise pollution which is being added to a very busy and noisy section of the DA - i.e. all on the one side and this is unreasonable, unfair and totally inappropriate. I recognise that it is 'one side' that will be illuminated, but this is not the aspect with which I have a concern, it is the overall totality of noise and light which in an accumulative sense will go beyond what is tolerable, reasonable, fair and right.

    In conclusion, my concerns have been clearly laid out in numerical order, I have offered context to my concerns and responded to the DA for 175 Ourimbah Road, Mosman. My concerns are significant, they are real and they are legitimate as they will deeply, negatively and materially affect my mental and physical health and wellbeing as well as affect my property.

    Thank you for your consideration and for taking the time to read my submission.

    Cheers,

    Peter Papilos

  13. In Mosman NSW on “Development Application -...” at 1 Morella Road, Mosman, NSW:

    Kate Eccles commented

    I am the coordinator of the NPWS bush regeneration group that works in the area of the of bushland to the South and East of 1 Morella Road.
    We volunteer there once a month - usually on the second Sunday of the month. The group has existed for around 25 years.

    I wish to make two points:

    1. There was extensive vandalism to the Angophora trees to the East of 1 Morella Road some years ago. It is possible that in due course there may be natural regeneration of trees in that area.

    2. The area we have been responsible for has, in the past, suffered from illegal dumping of builders' material when construction works are occurring locally. As this is damaging to the bushland and disheartening to the volunteers, we would like to request vigilant supervision of construction workers to ensure that the bushland site is protected.

    Thank you for considering these points.

  14. In Mosman NSW on “Development Application -...” at 94 Ourimbah Road, Mosman, NSW:

    A M Chaseling commented

    To whom it may concern, as one of the residents of 96 Ourimbah Road, I have a significant privacy concern as the proposed 8 metre height of 94 Ourimbah Road.This would block a significant amount of sunlight to our property, it would create a significant negative impact. I also note the size of the proposed building and am concerned that the size of the development is not consistent with the neighbourhood

    Thank you for your consideration of this submission.

  15. In Mosman NSW on “Development Application -...” at 94 Ourimbah Road, Mosman, NSW:

    Peter Papilos commented

    To whom it may concern, as one of the residents of 169 Ourimbah Road, I have a significant privacy concern as the proposed 8 metre height of 94 Ourimbah Road would directly overlook our main bedroom and block a significant amount of light - this would also create a significant negative impact.

    Thank you for your consideration of this submission.

    Cheers,

    Peter Papilos.

  16. In Mosman NSW on “Development Application -...” at 94 Ourimbah Road, Mosman, NSW:

    Gail Papilos commented

    Dear Mosman Council,
    94 Ourimbah Rd is directly opposite our house. There are significant privacy concerns due to the height of the 3rd storey which directly impacts our privacy in our main bedroom.

    Kind regards,
    Gail Papilos

  17. In Mosman NSW on “Development Application -...” at 3/44 Stanton Road, Mosman, NSW:

    Chris Finnie commented

    note that yesterday tree felling commenced on this property to large healthy tree in back yard, and i cannot understand how this is necessary for an extension of a terrace. Perhaps there is another reason and I hope this can be clarified ASAP

  18. In Mosman NSW on “Dwelling House Alts & Adds” at 13 Bradleys Head Road, Mosman, NSW:

    David Forrester commented

    I'd like DA information regarding 13 Bradleys Head Road, Mosman

  19. In Mosman NSW on “Modification of a consent...” at 91 Spofforth Street, Mosman, NSW:

    Karla & Scott Wynne commented

    To the General Manager
    Mosman Council

    Ref: 8.2008.18.2 - Extension of Dominos operating hours

    We are writing to strongly object to the application by Dominos Pizza to extend its operating hours.

    The grounds for our objection are as follows:

    1) Extended operating hours will result in further disruption of residents peaceful amenity - we have a right to sleep peacefully in our homes post 10pm without the significant disruption of noise caused by Dominos scooters, delivery cars and patrons.
    2) The increasing commercialisation of Glover St (Dominos Pizza, Audi, LJ Hooker) is seriously impacting the quality of life of residents - increased noise, traffic, litter and vandalism. Furthermore, Glover St is part of a heritage conservation area and extension of Dominos operating hours goes against the historical significance of the street.
    3) Parking for residents is already negatively impacted due to Dominos vehicles. Any extension of hours will further exacerbate parking availability for residents
    4) Fast acceleration of delivery drivers down Glover St, Glover Lane and Lindsay Lane as they race to provide speedy delivery is both a significant safety concern and further contributes to the significant noise impact on residents

    We would suggest that if Dominos wish to operate a late night business that a more suitable location should be sought on a main road ie. not in a residential heritage conservation street.

    Mosman council's failure to notify residents of Glover St beyond 100 Glover St (a mere 10 metres from Dominos shop front) is concerning. Given the long history of resident complaints about the operation of Dominos in this location we feel Mosman council could have provided more adequate notice.

    We can only conclude that council took this approach because the original DA approving Dominos operation is at the address 91 Spofforth St, and perhaps residents on Spofforth St were notified instead?

    A review of the map attached to this application clearly shows Dominos does not operate its shopfront nor deliveries from 91 Spofforth St, instead operating from 108 Glover St with sole street access for patrons and deliveries via a heritage conservation, residential street, Glover St. The notice in the Mosman daily was for address 91 Spofforth St - this is misleading and has led to many residents being unaware of this application.

    We would urge Mosman Council to conduct a review of the legitimacy of Dominos operation from this Glover St location as it would appear the original DA was approved for a shop fronting, and access via, Spofforth St.

    We trust that council will take appropriate action to reject this application and furthermore to conduct a review to confirm that the criteria of the original DA are valid.

    Residents and rate payers of residential Glover St have a right to peacefully sleep at night without the noise of frequent Dominos deliveries into the early hours.

    Karla & Scott Wynne

  20. In Mosman NSW on “Dwelling House –...” at 159 Raglan Street, Mosman, NSW:

    ????Keyth Pisani commented

    ??OBJECTION to the proposed development at 159 Raglan Street Mosman
    ????
    Application Number 8.2012.196.1 (Mr David Cowling)
    ????
    ????•“MORE LOVE” Bachelor Party Pad In Respectable Family Neighbourhood????•

    ??Considerations for Council

    1. Non-Compliance

    The allowable FSR for dwellings in this location under councils planning laws is 0.5. The
    existing FSR for the property at 159 Raglan Street is 0.73 which is already a substantial over-development. The proposed new development will see the FSR rise to 0.77. Again this is an even more significant over-development than Council allows for. The non-compliant FSR will greatly impact the local amenity, impose on neighbouring houses and create a greater building cluster closer to the existing boundary fences.
    The proposed Cabana size greatly exceeds Council’s requirements. The Council requirement for a structure of this nature is 20 m2. The proposal is to develop a Cabana of 28 m2... 40% in excess of the Council’s allowance.
    The back wall height exceeds the existing back boundary fence height by more than 20 cm. There will be a substantial loss of garden under this proposal. The already existing small garden area will be further reduced with the removal of existing mature trees.
    Council’s regulations also indicate that the pool area must have a 2 m setback from all boundaries.

    2. Overlook

    The applicant makes a range of allegations that his property is “overlooked” by neighbouring properties and seeks to further screen-off existing boundaries in order to increase concealment. Quite frankly, any privacy issues are exaggerated. The applicant’s property is nestled amongst four other properties in a respectable family neighbourhood block and this over-sensitivity to absolute privacy is unrealistic.

    3. Drainage

    The proposed flat roof of the Cabana does not appear to have appropriate drainage and may cause substantial water pooling. Currently, this area is not affected by any water pooling or poor drainage of storm water, due to Council’s tight oversight of the development of neighbouring properties.
    ?
    ?4. Pollution

    There is a very substantial risk of party noise directly affecting my property as well as other properties that surround the proposed development. The Cabana will have audio and lighting facilities and the location of proposed development will direct noise towards our living room downstairs and bedrooms upstairs.

    The proposed “MORE LOVE” fountain and signage is offensive in its party/poolside context and suggests lewd behaviour and debauchery; totally out of place in a respectable family neighbourhood.

    5. Proposed Cabana – Habitable Dwelling

    The proposed Cabana is clearly a space that can be habitable with cooking and sleeping facilities and appears to be the construction of a habitable room and living quarters. There is a suggestion of a possible fireplace and chimney with no details of its location and construction and possible effects of smoke drifting into neighbouring properties by prevailing winds. This is especially concerning considering the relative roof height of the building at fence height.
    The proposal is a relocation and duplication of existing facilities to adjoin a rear boundary fence unnecessarily causing loss of amenity to neighbouring properties. The proposed structure exceeds what is allowable under existing Council regulations in every aspect of the development.

    Finally, the applicant has not seen fit to consult any neighbours to discuss his proposed development or its potential impact on their property. It is unfortunate that he has chosen this path rather than adopt a more harmonious and openhanded approach. This is the second time he has submitted the proposal without our prior knowledge. The first application was submitted just before Christmas on 16 December 2011 and rejected by council due to insufficient documentation. This second application has been timed to coincide with the election of a new council, school holidays and the sale of two adjoining and directly affected properties one of which is empty awaiting the new owners and the other also as yet not inhabited by its new owners.
    ??

  21. In Mosman NSW on “Dwelling House – New” at 37 Bond Street, Mosman, NSW:

    Nicholas Whiteley commented

    Hi there - I live in 35 Bond St just next door to this property. There is an ASBESTOS ROOF being removed today with no one having prior informed us of when it starts so that we can make adequate arrangements to ensure that the roofing does not come near our house.

    Furthermore, I have not been shown and agreed upon adequate measures to prevent ASBESTOS DUST from entering our property, especially given that we have a dog (registered with Mosman Council) in our back yard... please contact me asap on 0404 231 233

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