Recent comments on applications from NSW Joint Regional Planning Panels, NSW

  1. In Sans Souci NSW on “365-377 Rocky Point Road,...” at 365-377 Rocky Point Road, Sans Souci:

    Angela Hili commented

    Re DA 227/2015 I should have realised that the developer always gets what they want and when there is a problem with this building the council passes the buck to the private certifier.The private certifier is always in a meeting and never bothers with complaints because they just want this building passed.
    I cannot believe the reflection from some of the west facing windows and silver metal on some of the balconies it is absolutely blinding in the afternoon but no one cares about the residents that have been here for many years.
    I also cannot believe the noise that comes from the central courtyard it’s like an amphitheater with the amplification of noise. I just wonder if the architect knew these problems could occur!!
    Another thing residents weren’t told about is that there is apparently 30 social housing units in this building.
    Too bad for residents no one care about them its all about the almighty dollar for the owner developer architect and council

  2. In South Hurstville NSW on “Mixed Use Development” at 2-6 Allen Street and 42-46 Connells Point Road South Hurstville:

    Vincent commented

    Georges River Council, in particular the General Manager and Executive Team are totally on-side with developers as revenue is their Ione and only focus. Hideous overdevelopment is being approved contrary to the mass objections from residents, ward councillors, councillors on mass, and state and federal MP's. South Hurstville has been destroyed by greed. The greed of developers is only surpassed by the greed of GRC who ignore and treat the residents, ratepayer and our elected representatives with utter contempt.

    The NSW Joint Regional Planning Panel/s need to be very aware that GRC is undemocratic and unrepresentative of not only residents and ratepayers, but also of our elected councillors and local MP's who the GRC Executive treats with contempt.

    South Hurstville and our neighbouring communities are being destroyed so the unelected bureaucrats can make their Resumes look good at the great expense of our suburb and community.

  3. In South Hurstville NSW on “Mixed Use Development” at 2-6 Allen Street and 42-46 Connells Point Road South Hurstville:

    Manny commented

    Our state and local governments are absolutely destroying South Hurstville with the most revolting and unnecessarily huge units that don’t fit into the area. The council sold the council car park to the developers thereby reducing available parking for visitors and shoppers.

    There is almost nowhere to park these days and people visiting the shops have taken to blocking private driveways.

    On top of overpopulating South Hurstville with hideous unit blocks for some greedy developers, the council and building regulators are allowing shoddy building practices slip through.

    The block that went up in Derwent St less than 12 months ago already has owners complaining about water leaks and aircon units breaking down. The developer also failed to complete the cladding on one wall so there is building foam and steel rods sticking out onto private property. The council has done nothing about it.

    This ugly monstrosity will be another shoddy block of units and the George’s River Council and State Govt should be held financially responsible if they create another Mascot or Opal Towers in South Hurstville due to lack of oversight and greed

  4. In Quirindi NSW on “24 Hour Truck Stop/Service...” at Lot 3 in DP1125557, Kamilaroi Highway, Quirindi:

    Quaydan Effer commented

    Hi I was wondering if there is a service station still going here thanks

  5. In Yarragundry NSW on “Proposed mixed use...” at 5 & 11 Sturt St, Wagga Wagga:

    Michael Douglass commented

    There is no benefit to this town in this proposal. I have spent many years living, working and commuting in Sydney where these types of buildings are sprouting up everywhere. There is no planning, they are just used as cash grabs by developers who will put them absolutely anywhere with no thought for liveability, next to main roads, busy intersections, rail lines, they don’t care and there seems no regulation to curb this. It is very disappointing to see developers with the same aims looking to now exploit regional areas. Without fail these complexes create parking and traffic issues at the very least & given the already cramped nature of the area in question there is no doubt that this area will become worse rather than better. Developments like this should fit a future plan for the area that seeks to avoid cramming and congestion.

  6. In on “Seniors Living Development” at 2A-2B Dowie Drive, Claymore NSW 2559:

    Celia Villanueva commented

    I ms Celia Villanueva,73 yrs old,widow,single. Applying in seniors living development in 2A-2B Dowie Drive Claymore Apartments,I'm interested to the place very close to all my needs like doctors,shop & church.I am please to know about all the details about the NSWJoint Regional Panels reference 2017SSW026 DA)..Please reconsider my application..
    Sincerely Yours,
    Ms Villanueva

  7. In Kiama Heights NSW on “Saddleback Mountain Rd &...” at Saddleback Mountain Road and Weir Street, South Kiama:

    Travice Young PRYOR commented

    This land has not been farmed for around 40 years, it has been leased for beef production and horses, usually as informal agreements at almost no return. Fencing is rundown and the quality of the pasture is poor. To my knowledge there has been little or no attempt to improve its productivity.
    I have a common boundary with this development and would have an interest in gaining access to this part of my property. The development would have to provide hydrant access to mains water for fire fighting. Suitable vehicle access would need to be provided to reduce the fuel level by standard farming operations.

  8. In Ryde NSW on “155 Church St” at 155 Church Street, Ryde:

    Huw Edwards commented

    I strongly object to this development. I strongly objected when it was with council before it went to yet another panel designed to circumvent the council so that developers can make more money. Everyone is aware of the findings of the GSC on Infrastructure in the area, so where is the additional infrastructure that would allow for a development like this to proceed?

    Let's face it though, this will with 99% certainty get approved with some minor changes to make the panel seem relevant and within 5 years those serviced apartments will be sold as residential. Infrastructure in Meadowbank will still be a disaster and Ryde will be permanently grid locked. Nobody will be held accountable and the residents will just continue to suffer.

  9. In Kellyville NSW on “Proposed Residential Flat...” at 2B Hector Court, Kellyville:

    Shriya commented

    We really need this shopping Center. Life will be much easier.

  10. In Dubbo NSW on “To reduce the minimum lot...” at Daisy Hill, Dubbo:

    Deborah Brooks commented

    Was talking to a neighbour about this subdivision. He lives on Eulomogo Road as well. Both of us agree snakes are in abundance around this area. If the subdivision goes ahead we are going to end up with more brown snakes as they will be displaced. Many of these snakes are big and a problem in regard to safety.

    Also there will be more traffic trying to access the highway. Peak hours are bad enough at the moment to turn onto the highway

  11. In Ryde NSW on “155 Church St” at 155 Church Street, Ryde:

    Keith Wade commented

    Construction of this 12 story tower alongside the Parramatta River is a mistake. It sets a few dangerous precedents.
    1/. Destruction of views. While Meadowbank is the poster child for overdevelopment, it does conform to a pattern: Building heights are restricted to 2 stories along the river with heights increasing progressively to 10 stories up the valley. Everyone enjoys a view. This new building slaps 12 stories virtually on the riverbank. This is not fair to both future developments and the thousands of current apartment residents.

    2/. Unsuited to park and harbour surrounds. The site is precious. It's the (only) river gateway into Ryde. This tower, built on a small peninsula, alongside a bridge risks becoming our version of the much derided Blues Point Towers. That controversial apartment block tower was mistakenly positioned by a park, by the water. Are we making the same mistake with this tower development? There is a reason why no towers have been built this close to the river since Blues Point.
    (Okay, Barangaroo/CBD excepted).

    3/. People environment compromised due to scale of development.
    A large number of people now enjoy Meadowbank parks. For the grass, playgrounds, tall trees, walkways, cycle trails, (etc). All the good stuff. And maybe to escape the concrete jungle that Meadowbank residents now live in.
    Unfortunately this tower creates: Wind, shadows, intimidating high buildings, and adds to the over development.
    Please scale this over development back

    [Apologies to all for length]

  12. In Glenhaven NSW on “Place of Worship” at 1 Larapinta Place, Glenhaven:

    Matt M commented

    I can’t believe this is being seriously considered. The land is R6 rural fringe in what is a residential area. I STRONGLY oppose this development in THIS location. There are other sites I would consider more suitable. Eg The timber yard that’s just gone on the market at Dural. It’s currently a commercial property. Serviced by several major roads. Transport provider right there with the bus company across the road.

    I drive through glen haven every day to and from my place of employment in Hornsby, and am wanting to purchase a small property in Glenhaven (I want my kids to live somewhere leafy, and quiet, pleasant), and am looking at some of the ones for sale near this proposed development.

    To be honest, this development scares me, it’s a reason I haven’t bought yet. And that statement has nothing to do with the denomination proposed as I have friends and colleagues that are Muslim and they are some of the nicest people you will meet. But it is the sheer volume of people, and use, and the traffic, and the assumptions in the reports.

    That end of Glen haven road (being single lane both directions) struggles in both morning and afternoon peaks. How is it going to go when “116 official cars” stop traffic to turn across Glenhaven road into a gated entrance on either glen haven road or Larrapinta place??? With all 116 cars wanting to get there in say a half hour window before a prayer session.

    What is their plan for an overflow car park in peak times eg Ramadan? Larapinta place couldn’t support any substantial number of cars, that leaves parking on the almost non existent shoulder of Glenhaven road. That road is narrow and I wouldn’t want to be the driver, park and then open the door to get out.... that’s a fatality just waiting to happen.

    Which consultancy company confirmed the expectation that patrons will travel there in cars with 5 people in them. How is that a real expectation to verify the validity of 116 cars spaces being suitable??

    They list public transport as a major factor for their choice of this site. What public transport?? There is no Glenhaven train station, and the only busses I’ve seen are school busses? Have they got an investment plan for busses like Hillsong??

    So since that end of Glenhaven road has no sewer system, what’s the plan for a massive septic system for the effluent of such a high use facility??

    Or as there is no stormwater facility either, what will happen to all the water caught in the drainage system for a 116 space car park? Approx 2000m2 (116 spots x 3m width x 5m length and round up for driveways- and I’ve been generous this should easily be 2500m2) catches a lot of water very quickly in a heavy down pour. Will it be piped as run off straight onto glenhaven road?? Or into another detention tank? If a detention tank, then what is the plan for it??

    So that’s now a septic tank and a storm water tank for this sort of volume in a high occupancy site, on a high traffic road??? Where is all this fluid going?

    I work in the energy efficiency industry, and buildings like this need pretty decent air cond systems for big spaces like this that don’t stay conditioned, but are ran to order wanting decent peak current draw from the grid. Can the local grid handle the extra current draw of a building this size?

    Another concern is the numbers of members quoted by HDMS. 800 members and growing. Growing at what rate? Real growth and target growth needs to be specified. but for a religion concerned with praying 5 times a day, they only expect 250 people at the facility at one time? So where are the other current 550 members going??? Humans have a tendency to cluster together, particularly minority groups. Yet only 800 members? How many other muslims in the hills, I think census data showed about 4000 in last census will go to the new shiny Mosque and the HDMS numbers surge post build?

    What is a typical day for a facility like this? I keep seeing references to a “call to prayer” and others have voiced concerns about the noise from a facility like this. Are we talking Bells? Or audio speakers with a tone 5 times a day??? One of the properties I really like is 600m down Glenhaven road. Will it be retrofitted at someone else’s cost with double glazing? I like to sleep past 5am ( proposed opening time)??? I’m also not a night owl, I’m usually in bed and asleep by 10pm, my kids are only young and are usually asleep at 8pm as well (whole house asleep before closing time). Oh wait, this is proposed to be a 24/7 site in a residential rural Ru6 zone...

    I’ve spoken to hills shire council several times about what can be done as Ru6 for a house. And it sure seems like I couldn’t do a development like this, so how does this get to this point??..

    It just doesn’t fit that area, it doesn’t have the infrastructure to support it without crushing everyone else, it’s just not smart sustainable development. Please look somewhere else

  13. In Baulkham Hills NSW on “Bull and Bush Hotel Site...” at 360 Windsor Road, Baulkham Hills:

    Richard Eden commented

    I agree with Peter Kellys comments.

    I avoid exiting from Arthur Street onto Seven Hills Road like the plague. Just wait until the Dyldam complex opens spewing forth vehicles into Yattenden Crescent.

    Surely the role of NSW Joint Regional Planning Panels (who I know have to read this) is to plan. Yes - I am having a dig at you. :-)

    Not simply approve developments and pump more vehicles in and around an area that is already highly congested.

    Please plan for further high rise developments to be near train lines.

  14. In Baulkham Hills NSW on “Bull and Bush Hotel Site...” at 360 Windsor Road, Baulkham Hills:

    Peter Kelly commented

    The traffic overload on Seven Hills Rd -as noted by every other objector - has long been evident; there can be no argument that the proposed development of the Bull & Bush site will not exacerbate the traffic/parking chaos in central Baulkham Hills. Residents were assured that traffic lights at Arthur St would be provided with contributions from the developments already completed on Seven Hills Rd; five years later and not one piece of infrastructure or traffic management!
    Elderly or disabled residents or mothers with prams will not walk along the eastern side of Seven Hills Rd because Arthur St has no safe crossing (and the footpath is treacherous). People must cross Seven Hills Rd -again no safe crossing point - to avoid the Arthur St debacle. Pedestrian safety is greatly compromised by the dangerous exits at Centrelink and the new apartment complex; since Seven Hills Rd provides the only pedestrian access to central Baulkham Hills, traffic management infrastructure must be implemented (not merely promised) before another of these 'instant slums' is built.

  15. In Glenhaven NSW on “Place of Worship” at 1 Larapinta Place, Glenhaven:

    Joseph commented

    This is over a year. Where is the approval process at?

  16. In Glenhaven NSW on “Place of Worship” at 1 Larapinta Place, Glenhaven:

    Deep Sh commented

    Glenhaven, is such a nice and beautiful piece of nature. Feel sorry for the residents now. Hope this is never approved and hope sanity prevail. Once this is approved. this part of hills will be a nightmare.

  17. In Maroubra NSW on “481-499 Malabar Road, Maroubra” at 481-499 Malabar Road, Maroubra:

    Local Resident commented


    The developers of this site have lodged amended plans. If you object to the development please reiterate your objection to council by tomorrow COB.

    Reasons for objection include.

    - The density is not conforming with local controls and is out of context. The FSR is not complaint and is excessive.

    - The Primary School next door will have its playground placed in shade in the morning.

    - The proposed site through links are not usable community space. The extent of the site through links needs expansion with improved amenities, free and open access and rights assured via registered easements.

    - The common facilities are not for public benefit. The prior use as a Bowlo was Private Recreation that was publicly accessible. The proposed use is not in the community interest.

    - The statement in the Social Impact Statement, 23 April by Cred that the site was able to be purchased for private recreation purposes fails to acknowledge that the site was marketed by agents as a development opportunity that had greater commercial opportunity. By virtue of their use type Private Recreation uses can not compete commercially with for profit private development uses.

    - The extent of open space is not sufficient and does not enable community activity.

    - The schools either side of the development will be adversely effected by dust, noise and vibration. The two years of disruption will significantly affect hundreds of school children’s formative years. The wider community of Maroubra do not support the development

    - Sufficient notification of the amended plans has not been provided at the property.

    - The LEP does not permit the type of development proposed. Residents have based their purchase decisions on the prevailing LEP.

    - The architects plans do not reflect the statements made in the SIA that a community hub, cafe, swimming pool, cinema and multifunction rooms will be available for public community use.

    - The SIA comment that there is other open space in proximity to the site is not a valid reason for reducing the open space in Maroubra. Maroubras population has increased in recent times. More open space is needed to provide that needed by the local community and the visitors that flock to the beach each day.

    - The use will not provide public benefit, only commercial benefit to the developer and private benefit for those that can afford its product offering.

    - The SIA comment that the area is well serviced with comparable clubs, p23, is erroneous.

    - The SIA comments that the there is more than enough open space. This comment is subjective and local residents disagree

    - The declining economic viability of the Bowlo is due to mismanagement and not sufficient argument against a change of use at the detriment of local residents amenity. If the site was sold at a price that acknowledged the RE2 zoning exclusively then operators of private recreation facilities could have competed on a fair basis. Instead the site was sold on the speculation it would be rezoned.

    - The existing aged care locations should be densified prior to absorbing open space

    - The open space audit, Appendix 1, SIA by Cred p 24, lists places well beyond that considered a reasonable walking distance. All parks over 800m away should be removed from consideration

    - Offensively the SIA states that facilities such as Centrelink and the Ambulance station are sufficient community facilities to justify the Bowlos destruction

    - The traffic management study fails to acknowledge the school pick up peak period at 3pm. Two primary schools sit each side of the site.

    - Employees car parking is not sufficient and car parking for the facility will spill over onto the already crowded roads.

    - Visitation traffic has not be given due consideration in the traffic report

    - The local road network and parking bays are not sufficient to hold existing uses that parents of local school children require plus the load from the over development of the site.

    - The traffic management plan suggests that bicycle will be a reasonable alternative means of transport for aged car and dementia suffering attendees

    - No date is supplied for when the traffic audit was undertaken. Was it completed at a time and date when the school was operating?

    - The prior mistakes allowing 4 Storey Development, noted in GSAs Urban Design Report p12, are not justification for extra ordinary allowance of the GFA and density that are not compliant with the LEP or local character

    - There are not sufficient setbacks from the boundaries

    - Local residents disagree with the flippant statements by GSA that the Bowlo makes no contribution to the street scape. The visual impact of the proposed development will be substantial and detrimental to sight lines. The photos provided in GSAs design statement are conveniently positioned to enhance their claims and not entirely and truthfully descriptive of the impact

    - The medium density site used as justification on p19 is under investigation. It’s approval came after political donations by the developers

    - School operations and future uses of open space may be effected by complaints from the elderly residents

    - Privacy of local residents will be impacted by overcrowding

    - The scale and urban grain of existing development has not been respected in the proposed design

    - Gates are shown on the plans for communal space. This space is not for public access or may be restricted by the operator post OC

    - The dementia courtyard will be dark from the surrounding density and height of the buildings

    - Building separation is not sufficient or inline with the width of Rossiter Ave

    - No meaningful sustainably initiatives or VPA that benefit the community are proposed

    - The GSA statement that the facility will not place additional burden on existing community facilities is false. Should the development proceed then enhancements to the local open space are desirable.

    - Should this development proceed it will set a dangerous precedent and will encourage the sell off of all bowling clubs and all Private Recreation lands to private developers

    - Sufficient detail of materials is not provided. Ensuring against combustion and provision of a materiality that is of a good standard is required

    - The current site through link receives constant sun. This will reduce to 2 hours per day. Not an inviting space that invites crime.

    - Visual impact study is self serving and by its own admission limited in scope.

    - Increased visual impact, restricted sight lines and reflection of the building will increase danger of traffic to students.

    - The current community are not supportive and we trust those charged with ensuring land is used in accordance with those outlined in the LEP and by the natural laws of merit. This site is not appropriate for the proposed use.

  18. In Ropes Crossing NSW on “Shopping Centre & RFBs” at 8 Central Place Ropes Crossing:

    Adam Richards commented

    I think this is wonderful. More affordable homes for people in the west! I hope this will be approved.

  19. In Ropes Crossing NSW on “Shopping Centre & RFBs” at 8 Central Place Ropes Crossing:

    Ian Horner commented

    I am also against this proposal — in its entirety. I would be happy if the developer was completely banned from Ropes Crossing for having the gall to be so audacious.

  20. In Ropes Crossing NSW on “Shopping Centre & RFBs” at 8 Central Place Ropes Crossing:

    Mark Pentecost commented

    The developer is planning to build three six storey high towers of units: each are two storeys higher than previously allowed by Blacktown City Council. The density of the development is unprecedented in our suburb and will spoil the aesthetics of the Central Precinct of Ropes Crossing. It is also contrary to the original Master Plan concept submitted for the suburb by Delfin Lend Lease.

    It will add to traffic congestion as residents exit the car park onto Ropes Crossing Boulevarde. Ganellan in their community consultations said there would be ten additional retail stores: this plan indicates just one of 40m2.

    I think a majority of residents will welcome more retail stores but oppose additional units.

    As a key member of Ropes Crossing Neighbourhood Watch group I oppose this development and the concept as the increased number of units will likely lead to more criminal activity.

  21. In Macquarie Park NSW on “Peach Tree - Mixed Use” at 9 Peach Tree Road, Macquarie Park:

    john hitchen commented

    when do you expect the project to start

  22. In Bondi Junction NSW on “New Mixed Use Building” at 47-55 Grafton Street, Bondi Junction:

    Doctor Tracey Hughes commented

    Be aware, the area is a potentially a Bio-hazard for Lead, and other heavy metals_I have had my own house assessed by the LEAD Group Inc. and aspects of the house and soil are both high_ all those years besides Syd Einfeld Drive!!

  23. In Macquarie Park NSW on “Peach Tree - Mixed Use” at 9 Peach Tree Road, Macquarie Park:

    john hitchen commented

    no i have not

  24. In Macquarie Park NSW on “Peach Tree - Mixed Use” at 9 Peach Tree Road, Macquarie Park:

    john hitchen commented

    when do you expext this deveplopment to start as i am a neighbour and concerned about noise and parking

  25. In Bondi Junction NSW on “New Mixed Use Building” at 47-55 Grafton Street, Bondi Junction:

    julia durzi commented

    have you considered the surrounding residents that live for the harbor and city views that will then be taken away by this new apartment? who will compensate them with the prices that they have paid for the view and location? this addition will be such a denotation to the amazing and exclusive area.

  26. In Frenchs Forest NSW on “Mixed Use Development” at 5 Skyline Place Frenchs Forest 2086:

    Deborah commented

    Let's keep residential development within the planned Phase 1, 2 and 3 of the Frenchs Forest Precinct planning. This site should stay as business use. We need careful planning to continue to create work spaces and employment opportunities in Frenchs Forest.
    Why build housing for Seniors (or anyone) within business parks.

  27. In Sutherland NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1-7 Boyle Street, Sutherland NSW 2232:

    Tim Edwards commented


    Having units in Boyle St is a terrible idea. This short street is a commercial area and is one of the very very few areas where late-night and 'noise making' businesses can operate. Currently in the street there is:
    - a pub that's open till 2-3am on weekend nights, including an outdoor smoking area that would be right next to people's apartment balconies if this development went ahead
    - one of the Shire's few remaining nightclubs
    - an F45 gym that blasts music out that can be heard on the street early in the morning,
    - some kind of music centre where people can go to practice learning instruments without disturbing their neighbours
    - a late night pizza shop
    - a 24-hour gym

    You can bet that if these apartments are built it won't take 5 minutes after people move in before the noise complaints start, resulting in all these existing businesses on Boyle St having to shut down or be restricted in their operations. This would be unfair and shows why it makes no sense to have residential apartments suddenly pop up in the middle of a commercial area.

    Sutherland has more than enough apartments - there's already a 'ghost' apartment block at nearby 1 Cook St that's been finished for months but is covered in 'For Lease' signs with no sign of life at all. The Sutherland town centre is just starting to get a bit of life back into it in the past 5 years, please don't wreck that.

  28. In Bondi Junction NSW on “New hotel development” at 5-11 Hollywood Avenue, Bondi Junction:

    C. Di Giulio commented

    The acoustic assessment, as well as the SEE, are inadequate in that they mostly consider noise impacts to the proposal’s occupants. They do not consider the full range of possible noise impacts from the proposal to adjoining, existing developments, in particular existing residential developments. The acoustic assessment should consider noise impacts from the café (outdoor component), basement garage door, roof top open air terrace, ground floor open form terrace, as well as any mechanical equipment.
    In this case, the SEE has not fully considered all potential environmental impacts and cannot confirm the site’s suitability.
    Should the development proceed, the roof top terrace should not be operational after 6pm or before 9am 7 days a week. The café should not be operational after 5pm 7 days a week, and not before 8am on weekends. Deliveries, including any collection of waste, should not occur before 8am or after 5pm 7 days a week.
    The eastern elevation is almost entirely glazed, with occupants of rooms looking directly into dwellings on the opposite side of Hollywood Avenue. Although glazing may be ‘visioning glazing’ as noted on the plans, occupants of the proposal will still be able to look directly at adjoining, existing dwellings. While ‘vision glazing’ may not be see through from other properties, there remains the perception by occupants of existing dwellings that they will be overlooked. The sheer number of rooms, and extent of glazing on the eastern elevation is extensive and will significantly reduce privacy.

    Building Height/4.6 Exception request
    The height permitted by the Waverley LEP 2012 is 32m. The proposal breaches this height by 3.8m. In breaching the height, the proposal includes 1 additional storey than what would normally be permitted. In doing so, it provides a full 11 additional rooms that will overlook adjoining dwellings, generating privacy impacts above what is contemplated by the Waverley LEP 2012. As such, the proposal is inconsistent with objective 4.3(1)(a) of the WLEP 2012, and the exception request cannot be supported.
    In our view, generating additional privacy impacts does not represent an appropriate transition with respect to building heights and surrounding land, as required by objective 4.3(1)(c), further demonstrating why the Clause 4.6 request should not be supported.
    Total Occupants
    The proposal allows for 198 rooms. Potentially, between 198 to almost 400 people could be accommodated within the development. Community services in the locality, and in particular active open spaces are severely strained. Adding further people to this extent will severely compromise existing community facilities. Ultimately it is permanent residents of the community who feel this strain the most, whilst for occupants of the proposal, it is merely a temporary issue, if an issue at all.
    The café is proposed to operate between 6am to 10pm, 7 days a week. As indicated earlier, the café should not be operational after 5pm 7 days a week, and not before 8am on weekends. This is particularly given there are dwellings directly on the opposite side of Hollywood Avenue.
    Car Parking Along Hollywood Avenue
    We note the proposal includes parking along Hollywood Avenue. The noise impacts associated form this has not been considered in the acoustic assessment and should do so given the number of permanent residences on the opposite side of Hollywood Avenue. Specifically, there will be noise from the closing of car doors, which during the night will disturb the sleep of permanent residents in a case where currently there are no car spaces.
    B3 Zone Objectives
    We note the land use related objectives of the relevant B3 zone focus towards promoting commercial floor space and employment generating. The proposal’s floor space is almost entirely for short term residential purposes and as such, is entirely inconsistent with the zone objectives. The proposal should be amended to include notably more commercial floor space to strengthen Bondi Junction’s roles as a core commercial centre, thereby providing further employment opportunities for not only a growing population, but more importantly, permanent residents.
    We understand Council and the relevant planning panel has enforced this outcome on several other developments and/or recent approvals within or in close proximity to Bondi Junction centre.

    Design Excellence
    We are of the view the proposal would not satisfy the amenity related objectives of the WLEP 2012 design excellence clause. As mentioned earlier, the proposal will severely overlook existing dwellings on the eastern side of Hollywood Avenue due to the extent of glazing on it’s eastern elevation. Further solid materials should be incorporated on the eastern elevation to reduce the perception of overlooking. Additionally, the extent of commercial floor space should be increased which will further decrease opportunities for overlooking (and in doing so, assist with satisfying the commercial related objectives of the B3 zone).
    The proposal includes 0 onsite parking spaces, whilst an onsite drop off/pick zone is also absent. Rather, the proposal relies on 2 – 3 potential on street spaces which currently do not exist and there is no clear policy direction as to whether they will be implemented.
    Any hotel, regardless of its location or perceived target market generates substantial parking demand as well as pick up/drop off requirements. In this case, the application’s traffic and parking assessment is questionable. Our experiences over a number of years is that traffic along Hollywood Avenue and surrounds is increasing substantially. This results in inconvenient congestion for permanent residents, as well as over use of horns and the like, to the detriment of private amenity.
    The proposal will generate substantial traffic and parking demands, and as a consequence, further congestion and amenity related impacts.
    Plan of Management (PoM)
    The PoM indicates that there would not be a reception as part of the proposal. This suggests the proposal is not a ‘hotel’, but rather a boarding house or other form of residential accommodation, both of which are prohibited in the subject zone.
    Further, the absence of a ‘manned’ reception brings into question security and the general operation of the premises. This is because reception staff typically provide the most effective form of surveillance to any hotel.
    A basement drop off zone is referenced in the PoM. The SEE and architectural plans do not show or reference such a zone in the basement.
    There is very limited details included in the PoM in relation to cleaning, and cleaning any outdoor spaces or any public domain in the vicinity of the proposal. The PoM should stipulate, at a minimum, during which hours outdoor cleaning will take place. This is important to protect the amenity of nearby residents. Cleaning with the use of motorised blowers, vacuum cleaners, or the like before 9am or after 5pm would impact on the amenity of nearby residents. This is particularly the case as there are currently issues with cleaning contractors at the premises using motorised machinery late in the evenings, impacting on residential amenity.
    The PoM should also detail exact cleaning procedures so as to reassure residents in the locality that the area will be maintained in a clean, and tidy condition..
    The PoM is flawed in that it does not suggest a contact number will be readily available to members of the public to respond to any nuisances. Typically, a hotel or boarding house operator provides an emergency contact number to adjoining residents or will offer to make such a number visible on the proposed building (such as on the front door).
    As stated in Council’s Pre-DA minutes, the PoM was to address social and economic impacts, but does not consider these in any form. The PoM does address how nuisances will be addressed, or how inevitable increase in community, social, and open space demands arising from the proposal (which could accommodate up to around 400 people) will be met.
    Floor Space Ratio
    We recommend requesting gross floor area plans as there appears to be errors in relation to floor space ratio, albeit it minor. For example, according to the architectural design report, it appears the basement laundry has not be considered as GFA, when it is not listed as item to be excluded according to the definitions in the WLEP 2012.
    Traffic Assessment
    The SEE and traffic assessment assume that all guests will arrive at the proposal by public transport, taxi, or walking. The lack of any onsite parking, and supposed reduction in congestion is based on this assumption. However, this assumption is not qualified with any evidence. It is recommended that a comparison analysis be undertaken of other hotels to confirm this outcome. In this case, it should be noted that most other hotels or serviced apartments in Bondi Junction include substantial onsite parking. This includes Meriton suites and the recently completed Quest hotel.

  29. In on “Eco- Resort Corowa” at 'Warrawidgee' 803 Spring Drive Corowa NSW 2646:

    Andrew Ross Meharry commented

    I am in full agreement with this project to go ahead at Warrawidgee

  30. In Bondi Junction NSW on “New hotel development” at 5-11 Hollywood Avenue, Bondi Junction:

    Taylor Deckard commented

    To all concerned patrons: I have been a resident here in the Junction for over 35 years. The last thing we need is another abhorrent site taking our views and blocking our sunshine...
    After speaking to my local member of parliament: I am quite confident this development will not be passed, due to the fact that the Bondi junction Waverley Rsl club was knocked back in a similar fashion last year over a proposed “build” ,which mirrors this current project. It’s a plain and simple outcome: Don’t kid yourself The new council bracket formed could be up for liability (legal ramifications) if they chose to “pass” this in favour over the Rsl(s) previous failed DA application. Council chambers are more than “well aware” of 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