Recent comments on applications from Northern Beaches Council, NSW

  1. In North Curl Curl NSW on “Tree Application -...” at 138 Headland Road North Curl Curl NSW 2099:

    Gary Rowan commented

    138 Headland Rd, North Curl Curl.
    Please can we have this tree removed it is to big for the position it is situated. The roots are under our next door neighbors house. A lot of the roots are above the ground as it is sitting on sandstone. We are scared at some time in a storm this huge tree might blow over and cause major damage.

  2. In Mona Vale NSW on “Construction of a...” at 24 Darley Street East, Mona Vale NSW 2103:

    Ben commented


    Can you please advise on timings for commencement? Has council provided development consent?


  3. In North Narrabeen NSW on “<insert details>” at 1 Narrabeen Park Parade, North Narrabeen NSW 2101:

    Pauline & Kim McMahon commented

    I live close by. The application seems completely reasonable. There should be no problem with music and the caravan park. The Ospreys have built a beautiful nest in the park behind rat no problem.
    Norfolk Island pines are not native to this area. It is lovely to have outside eating in the restaurant area. We need progress and some upgrades in this area we are not talking about skyscrapers here!

  4. In North Narrabeen NSW on “<insert details>” at 1 Narrabeen Park Parade, North Narrabeen NSW 2101:

    Janet Leith Craig commented

    I have lived close by "One" for 10 years.The problems with this application are the alienation of Crown Reserve Land for private use, the potential damage to the Norfolk Pine trees in that area, and the potential noise levels if this application goes ahead. 180 people for a cocktail party is too many for this quiet area..I would want no more than 60 people in total..there simply isn't the room for a "pub-style" grouping, and I worry about broken bottles/glasses/drunks outdoors, where families with young children pass by regularly, especially in summer.
    I have no objection to outdoor music, particularly if it employs local artists, is not too loud, and those musicians remain on the 10x4 metre outside paved dining area which has been there many years. The hours suggested are fine...most of the local clientele would be families with youngish children (in school hols) and grey nomads from the Lakeside Caravan Park over the road. The Norfolk Pines may not be native, but they are attractive and house many birds (lorrikeets roost in them), and they have formed habitat for threatened Ospreys and Sea Eagles in recent years. Damage to them from "One" customers would be a great shame and inexcusable.

  5. In North Narrabeen NSW on “<insert details>” at 1 Narrabeen Park Parade, North Narrabeen NSW 2101:

    Liz Kelly commented

    Please keep the Norfolk Pines they are part of the Northern Beaches history and
    especially North Narrbeen. Some people only think for what is good for an individual not the community. Keep the Trees and Private enterprise not to build on public land.

  6. In North Narrabeen NSW on “<insert details>” at 1 Narrabeen Park Parade, North Narrabeen NSW 2101:

    P. Henderson commented

    I have no problem with the new proposals at "One Restaurant". I only hope you get rid of those terrible Norfolk Island pines down there, they are a non native introduced species, they block the sun, drop pine needles non stop all day covering the ground and killing the grass which then makes the area un usable. No one wants to sit in dirt with pine needles dropping on there head.

  7. In Manly NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 2 / 87 Birkley Road, Manly NSW 2095:

    Shauna villis commented

    Good afternoon
    We are the owners of unit 4, 87 Birkley road, Manly. We didn’t get any notification regarding this application that affects us as our unit is directly above unit 2. We have been waiting for notification so that we could put a submission in. Our bedrooms are above the new deck area. Should we not have received some sort of notification as adjoining property owners?

  8. In Manly NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 19 Marshall Street, Manly NSW 2095:

    Pieter Stroethoff commented

    Dear Sir /Madam ,
    I am responding yet again to the issue of the development application at 19 Marshall Street, Manly, and the ongoing issues with loss of privacy and noise that affect our property at 61 Wood St Manly ( which is 1.2 metres away from the dwelling over the side fence, not 1.5 m as quoted in the 2019 assessment). We are concerned about the potential misuse of the property for short term accommodation use, parking issues and light pollution, and most importantly the non compliance with setback standards. Please consult our file on this issue which stretches back many years, involving different owners and includes numerous development infringements, including trespass on our property. There are numerous photos of unapproved building works that have somehow managed to slip through the net, only to be approved retrospectively
    The assessment in 2019 DA 2019/0356 stated categorically
    "Short-term holiday accommodation:
    Concerns have been raised that the tenants occupying the proposed secondary dwelling will be unregulated, as it will be used for short-term holiday accommodation purpose's.
    Comment:The proposal seeks consent for changing the use of the existing outbuilding to a secondary dwelling. Nothing within this consent will permit the structure to be used for tourist and visitor accommodation purpose's. Imposed conditions, will ensure that any variation to the approved land use will require the submission to Council of a new development application."

    Also noted in the last assessment

    " It is acknowledged, that the outbuilding structure has been altered since the original approval, that is why the applicant has lodged a building certificate (BC2019/0068) in conjunction with this application, to seek a retrospective approval for alterations and additions to the detached outbuilding."

    The rulings made in the 2019 assessment must be adhered to in the current development application.

  9. In Avalon Beach NSW on “"insert details"” at 27 North Avalon Road, Avalon Beach NSW 2107:

    Erin Hopkins commented

    I am concerned about the development proposed for 27/29 North Avalon Rd. Avalon Beach. I live just around the corner on Tasman Road and already feel our small neighborhood is at breaking point with local traffic and cars parked on the street. The addition of 10 new apartments will only worsen this situation as it will not only be residents of these buildings on the roads and parking on the streets but any visitors and guests as well. I have two young children on their bikes and footpaths in the area daily and we already find North Avalon Road a busy thoroughfare that is often unsafe for them. Please strongly consider the impact TEN new apartments will have on our local area. We cannot cope with more traffic.
    Kind regards,
    Erin Hopkins

  10. In Mona Vale NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 56 Samuel Street, Mona Vale NSW 2103:

    David Daniel Leach commented

    I want to see the elevations as I live next door.

  11. In Manly NSW on “Demolition works and...” at 32 Bower Street, Manly NSW 2095:

    Lou Sand commented

    During this world wide environmental crisis I think that the development of such a proposal so close to such a natural treasure (Shelley Beach and surrounds) is severely detrimental. Not only will there be a huge loss of biodiversity but the excess material waste that comes from removing such a massive house is an unfair contribution to landfill purely because the rich are not satisfied with their current dwelling. There will inevitably be a huge amount of water used in the building of this newly proposed house at a time where the whole country ought to be using as little water as possible. The demolition of the entire property will release awful sediments that will ultimately end up in the water that is a stone trow away from the house and, whilst different to the ash from the current ongoing fires that we have seen suffocate marine creatures, will have a profound effect on the local underwater environment at Shelley Beach. The newly proposed absolute diabolical renovation of this property will effect neighbouring views and reduce the value of surrounding houses effected. Because of the increased surface area of the roofing it will generate an exponential increase in run off from the house that could negatively effect the publicly owned nature reserve to the south of the house. Potentially causing small landslides or flooding in periods of heavy rain fall. Not dissimilar to the way in which the development of St Patricks estate flooded the pathway leading to Shelly Beach in March 2019, this development has the potential to do the same on a larger scale. The addition of a pool in an area that couldn't get any closer to the beach is a preposterous suggestion that suggests a lack of consideration. This is a case of the elite not considering the environmental costs of selfishness. I do so hope that you guys at the council have a deep and wide understanding of the environmental costs of this proposal and choose to properly investigate all of the detrimental aspects in accordance with the publics concern for the natural integrity of our beautiful Manly.

  12. In Fairlight NSW on “New - <insert here>” at 195 Sydney Road Fairlight NSW 2094:

    J Wilkin commented

    A perfect example of 'entitled' community being completely clueless about development and good architecture. The proposal looks great and is proposed top put 74 room critical worker housing on a busy road under a 14 storey tower.
    We all want our teachers, police officers, nursers and firefighters to live in local suburbs, yet the moment we see a proposal next to our houses we scream over-development and greedy developers. No-one wants to live next to school or hospital, yet it is critical, subsidised housing is no different.
    The fact that this proposal was unanimously approved by the planning panel, despite all the 'outrage' by the local minority speaks volumes of how outspoken really care only about themselves and the value of their properties, without any consideration of a real community benefit.

  13. In on “Subdivision - Torrens Title” at 2 A West Street Balgowlah NSW 2093:

    Joanne Slip commented

    I wish to submit an objection to Application DA 2019/0191. I live in the adjacent property at 6/4 West St, Balgowlah. My concerns for the proposed foot print for the dwelling is it will impact my privacy due to the close proximity of the structure to the southern boundary of my property. I have further concerns about the orientation of their entertaining area and the associated noise. I am aware that the wash of their lights from this proposed dwelling will also impact me. Even though the placement of the drive way may be obscured regarding headlights being directed into my property the associated noise from vehicles will be significant.

  14. In Frenchs Forest NSW on “Demolition works and...” at 34 Adams Street, Frenchs Forest NSW 2086:

    Michelle Carroll commented

    What does it mean that ‘details are to be inserted ‘. Has this DA been approved? Thank you

  15. In Church Point NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 1858 Pittwater Road, Church Point NSW 2105:

    Fabienne d'Hautefeuille commented

    This DA appears to partly be a retro-fitting process to get approval for the current development. I oppose to such processes, DAs are to be obtained prior works of that impact on the local environment and community be undertaken. Thee process should be equitable for all.
    On the impact to the community, the local management of parking is a key concern. Residents pay in excess of $500/year to park at Church Point, the car park is now always full every weekend and most weekdays nearly full also. The next major concern is the noise. For those residents facing Church Point, the noise is a key issue, it will impact wellbeing critically and decrease property value. While a cafe may be supported an extensive venue for bar and weddings is not. This DA 's timeline should consider the outcome of the liquor and gaming bar licence application for 350 patrons.

  16. In Forestville NSW on “Demolition works and...” at 33 Starkey Street, Forestville NSW 2087:

    Susan Macandrew commented

    $400/$450 rent per week is not affordable accommodation which is why many of the existing boarding houses are unoccupied! Affordable accommodation and/or homes for the over 55s and disabled should be a priority for Forestville area. I would urge council to think how the area will be transformed should many more of these boarding houses be allowed to be built.
    These types of dwellings are 'get rich quick schemes' for developers who in 10 years time will transform them into expensive apartments and the tenants will be made homeless.
    Its time for some long term affordable housing to be considered by Council.

  17. In Queenscliff NSW on “Demolition works and...” at 68 A Queenscliff Road, Queenscliff NSW 2096:

    Beth commented

    After reviewing the plans for this development I agree with the statements already logged on this page. I feel the height of the development is unnecessary and intrusive to surrounding homes which will have blocked sunlight as a result. Parking is already limited in this area and there doesn't seem to be enough parking provision for this new development. Overall I hope this development will be reconsidered with these points in mind.

  18. In Forestville NSW on “Demolition works and...” at 33 Starkey Street, Forestville NSW 2087:

    Sandra Bridekirk commented

    Like the boarding house already granted approval in Darley Street, this development is not in character with the area. Forestville and the adjacent suburb of Killarney Heights is primarily a mix of young families and elderly retirees who have been in the area for decades. This is not an area known for short-term accommodation and I see no community benefit in encouraging this style of development. As others have mentioned, traffic close to Forestville shops has increased exponentially. Adding more high-density living to the area will only make this worse. Parking is also already a problem. I would urge you to decline the transformation of a family home into a boarding house-style residence.

  19. In Queenscliff NSW on “Demolition works and...” at 68 A Queenscliff Road, Queenscliff NSW 2096:

    Gillian Ruskin commented

    Further to the comments made in the other submissions with which we agree with, we also would like to object to the new development for the following reasons:
    1. Our house is at 21A Upper Greycliffe Street which is located immediately adjacent to the proposed Development at 68A Queenscliff Road. We have reviewed the Plans and object to our losing sunlight between our back door and our Pergola. We have limited sunlight in any case and the new development with reduce it further. There is also a loss of sunlight in our front yard from new shadowing.
    2. We are extremely concerned that the deep and extensive excavation of the basement will lead to excessive vibration and noise that may cause cracks and structural damage to our property during the construction phase.
    3. We object to the unsightly Lift Well protrusion on the Roof. It is both ugly and exceeds height restrictions.
    4. We object to the increased level of traffic that the new development will cause; particularly in relation to the two businesses in addition to the residential apartments. There is already very limited parking in the area and given both the lower part of Upper Greycliffe Street and eastern side of Queenscliff Road are "One Way" there will be a higher level of traffic doing U and 3-point turns outside our property. This will also cause further traffic danger to the many pedestrians that walk past and cross the road between Queenscliff and Freshwater beaches.

  20. In Forestville NSW on “Demolition works and...” at 33 Starkey Street, Forestville NSW 2087:

    Tom D commented

    There is no need for a boarding house as many are not fully occupied. The suggested location is also in a high traffic area suffering from congestion, especially the area around the Coles and community hall. The traffic lights prioritize traffic on Warringah road and it can take up to two cycles to turn onto warringah road. There is a shortage of over 55’s accommodation with an ageing population wanting to downsize and stay in the local area.

  21. In Queenscliff NSW on “Demolition works and...” at 68 A Queenscliff Road, Queenscliff NSW 2096:

    George Davis commented

    I believe this site needs to be redeveloped, however this design is quite excessive where it exceeds the maximum height limit of 8.5m and does not provide sufficient parking for the number of new properties. Therefore, this will be detrimental to the local area views, parking and quiet enjoyment.

  22. In Forestville NSW on “Demolition works and...” at 33 Starkey Street, Forestville NSW 2087:

    Tony Morgan commented

    Please no more boarding houses.
    Traffic congestion in this area is becoming an issue. And there are a number of boarding houses in the area or planned and some are not fully occupied now
    There is a shortage of over 55’s accomodation with an ageing population wanting to downsize and stay in the locality

  23. In Forestville NSW on “Demolition works and...” at 33 Starkey Street, Forestville NSW 2087:

    Donna Gray commented

    An absolute disaster if yet another boarding house is approved in this area. The one at 12 Darley is bad enough. Please no more of this madness?

  24. In Forestville NSW on “Demolition works and...” at 33 Starkey Street, Forestville NSW 2087:

    Carol Fitzsimons commented

    The development of a boarding house in this area is inappropriate.The majority of dwellings are owner occupied.
    This development would add to the traffic congestion at peak times which at the moment extends down Starkey st
    There appears to be an over abundance of boarding houses in the Forest area and these are not being fully occupied
    Council would be better to provide more accommodation for the ageing population in the area with the solution being more over 55 housing.

  25. In Mona Vale NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 13 Bruce Street, Mona Vale NSW 2103:

    Robert Brian Harvie & Miri Frances Craig commented

    We request that there be no lights whose brightness or direction invade our privacy.
    View from our East outlook, & night stargazing, are of primary importance to us.

  26. In Queenscliff NSW on “Demolition Works,...” at 71 Queenscliff Road, Queenscliff NSW 2096:

    David & Jennifer Steindl commented

    We wish to lodge an objection with regard to the proposed development Application DA2109/0730
    It breaches Council Height Restrictions > currently there are a large number of unit blocks that are 3 storeys tall we do not understand that an application has been lodged for a five storey development given that the Queenscliif Rd Envelope is 3 storeys how is this application even considered? Clearly if allowed it will breach set back provisions on the easter & Western Boundaries and open space requirements as well. Approval would create an unwelcome precedent.
    Our greatest concern is parking, Queenscliff rd is already at maximum capacity and council would be very aware of the parking issues because of YOUR previous studies and submissions from residents. There are a number of unit blocks in this street that have garages that are too small to take todays vehicles adding to the overcrowding.There are also a number of properties with 4 vehicles in the immediate vicinity of this proposal so an average of 28 car spots for 15 units and 3 visitor spots is insufficient and will only add to the problem. Please do not allow this to happen. Council also knows from a previous study that providing parking stickers to residents would not work as there are not enough car spaces, this just confirms the lack of available car spaces currently in Queenscliff Rd, this development will only exacerbate the problem.
    As our representatives we are looking to Council to provide some leadership and vision with regard to this application.

  27. In Frenchs Forest NSW on “New - Insert Customer's...” at 6 Gladys Avenue Frenchs Forest NSW 2086:

    Colin Mitchell commented

    This development in Gladys Avenue is yet another example of developers exploiting loopholes in the legislation regarding SEPP and so called affordable housing.These are not low rent public housing units. They are advertised as executive apartments.The road is too narrow and already crowded with hospital traffic. It is meant to be a low density street and if the zoning changes to units on the Forrest Way side there will be even more congestion. If this development is meant to be for aged residents, how come each unit has four bedrooms? If this is allowed, then every house in the street could become a "boarding house".

  28. In Bayview NSW on “New - (insert details)” at 9 Minkara Road Bayview NSW 2104:

    Rosalind Williams commented

    Will there ever be a time when Northern Beaches Council put the environment of this beautiful area before the profits of developers.

    Your approval of this development is an outrage.

  29. In Bayview NSW on “New - (insert details)” at 9 Minkara Road Bayview NSW 2104:

    Rosalind Williams commented

    Will there ever be a time when Northern Beaches Council put the environment of this beautiful area before the profits of developers.

    Your approval of this development is an outrage.

  30. In Bayview NSW on “New - (insert details)” at 9 Minkara Road Bayview NSW 2104:

    Janice Haviland commented

    Dear Sir
    In the interests of conservation and protecting our natural environment please decline commission for the building of residential age care units to be built on Pittwater Golf course.
    The Land & Environment Court of NSW is hearing “closing arguments” on Tuesday 12th February 2019 , in the matter for the proposed development of 85 Seniors Housing units in 7 buildings that will be multi storeys high on Bayview golf course in Pittwater’s largest gazetted Wildlife corridor .

    As well as looking unsightly this development will have enormous ramifications for the wildlife that inhabit this corridor.
    The impacts on biodiversity are very substantial and adverse. Proposal fails to comply with PLEP and PDCP requirements .The visual impact of the proposed buildings will be huge after removal of 249 mature trees that are 70+ years old. Destroying all these trees that are the homes for a variety of bird species as well as other animals will have enormous consequences for these animals.

    For the environment and the wildlife that call this area home please preserve this wildlife corridor and do not approve this development. We must preserve these natural environments for future generations to enjoy.
    Yours sincerely
    Janice Haviland

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