Recent comments on applications from City of Ryde, NSW

  1. In Denistone East NSW on “Construction of new 73...” at 26 Beattie Ave Denistone East NSW 2112:

    Warren Smith commented

    Dear Ryde residents,
    Our local community needs at least 10 unique individually written letters to be sent to The General Manager City of Ryde to escalate this to a public meeting.
    It needs to be titled Submissions - LDA2020/0358
    You will need to include your name and address also.
    Closing deadline is 11th November.

    Submissions are required to be in writing, and should the submission be by way of objection to the proposal, the submission should specify the grounds of objection. All correspondence should be addressed to the General Manager and can be sent by:
    • Email: cityofryde@ryde.nsw.gov.au
    • Post: General Manager, City of Ryde, Locked Bag 2069, North Ryde NSW 1670
    • Drop off: Customer Service Centre (Underneath Ryde Library), 1 Pope Street, Ryde NSW 2112

    Thank you

  2. In Denistone East NSW on “Construction of new 73...” at 26 Beattie Ave Denistone East NSW 2112:

    VIVIAN WANG commented

    I strongly oppose this application firstly on the basis that it does not comply with Ryde Council guidelines for childcare centres and secondly on the basis of the impact it is likely to have on the surrounding residents, streets and area.
    Ryde Council’s website states that :
    1) Preferred locations are sites with the least number of adjoining properties.
    26 Beattie Ave has seven different neighbours adjoining this property.
    2) Sites adjoining town houses, villas and flats are not considered suitable due to
    increased potential for amenity impacts.
    There are three villas located next door at number 24 Beattie Avenue and three
    individual houses that back onto 26 Beattie Ave.
    3) Where sites are located within low density residential areas, preference is given to
    smaller scale development ( under 50 child care places).
    26 Beattie Ave is proposing 73 places and the area is zoned R2 Low Density
    Residential.
    4) Major trees on adjacent properties particularly those within 9m of subject site.
    There is a very large silky oak on one of the properties to the rear of the site that is
    within 9m of the boundary and numerous other large trees on another
    property to the rear as well.
    5) Sources of nuisance - flight paths
    The site is located under a regular flight path which sees a lot of traffic during normal
    times, even during a pandemic.
    6) Underground parking is not permitted in low density residential areas
    Parking and driveway is not to dominate the street scape.
    The proposal for 26 Beattie Ave is for basement parking / underground parking.
    7) In low density residential areas child care centres are encouraged to be single story
    in height for reasons of safety and access.
    Further to this child care centres are not advised to be built in close proximity of arterial roads. Blaxland Road is an arterial road and located at the end of Beattie Avenue.
    Beattie Ave and Haig Ave have become rat runs for traffic and with the ever increasing development that we are seeing this is only going to get worse. A child care centre located at this site will increase this and push more onto surrounding streets.
    The amenity of those living close to this proposed child care will be dramatically changed for the worse. There are a lot of older residents who are at home during the day who will be adversely affected by noise each day and though the hours have not been listed child care centres are generally open early for drop offs and close late for pick ups. At present it is a quiet neighbourhood especially during the week and nobody wants to see this change.

  3. In Denistone East NSW on “Construction of new 73...” at 26 Beattie Ave Denistone East NSW 2112:

    Glenis Hill commented

    Adit to my earlier comment (24.10) about proposed child care centre. I live in the villas next door to 26 Beattie Ave, there would be loss of morning sun to units 1 and 2 and any trees (4 noted for planting) planned have heights 10 - 12m including a Crepe Myrtle tree would have loss of sun impact on villa 3: Point noted Vernon: 73 happy children running around the plants might also reduce the pleasure I get from being outdoors in my garden.

    Cars bringing children to the centre would park on Beattie Ave and then walking across grass or path from the car parked on the road. There are 18 (staff and l set down car spaces under the building which would allow a car to park and the child to be taken in to the child area. NB there may be 73 cars doing this short time parking exercise.??? they open at 7AM!
    Currently there are 2 vehicles parked on the street in front of 24 most days. The photo presented by the child care proposers show NO cars.
    Hope this traffic stop/go doesn't mean we might get parking meters ? for those not included in the centre parking in Beattie Ave

  4. In Denistone East NSW on “Construction of new 73...” at 26 Beattie Ave Denistone East NSW 2112:

    VERNON KEYSER commented

    I have strong objections to this development application as it fails to comply with Ryde Council’s own guidelines.

    a, The development would bring commercial business into a residential area.

    b, This is a quiet low density residential area and seventy three places would impact the peace currently enjoyed by the surrounding homes.

    c, There are large trees within nine meters of the site.

    d, Underground parking is not permitted in low density residential areas and if permitted would raise the height of the building to an unacceptable height to surrounding houses both to side and rear of the development.

    e, There are seven homes joining this development which will be directly affected by noise, congestion and privacy.

    f, Beattie Ave and Haig Ave have both become rat runs for traffic with increased development in the area, with this development there would be excessive congestion in Beattie due to drop off, pick and special days such as Grand Parent days. This would result in more traffic using Haig Ave to avoid the congestion.

    g, Ryde Council currently has a ‘Draft Local Housing Strategy and Draft Planning Proposal to amend Planning Controls in the R2 Low Density Residential Zone’. This development goes against Council’s own Strategy of maintaining the quality of life in Low Density Residential Areas.

    A large number of trees have been removed from this property in the last year. There are now no trees on the property and the owners have asked for the one camellia on the property behind to be removed. What has happened to the Greening of the City of Ryde?

    We currently enjoy gardening and relaxing in our garden. Seventy Three screaming children would significantly impact this enjoyment.

    This development will certainly have a detrimental influence on this area.

  5. In Denistone East NSW on “Construction of new 73...” at 26 Beattie Ave Denistone East NSW 2112:

    Vicki Johnson commented

    Barry Shirley, I totally understand your frustration about the never ending over development in the City of Ryde and across greater Sydney. The only areas that seem to be immune to this type of development are certain prestigious suburbs.
    While I have empathy for the residents surrounding the development at 2-6 Chatham Rd West Ryde and the obvious disruption and loss of any privacy they will now have, this area is obviously zoned differently to ours as the site is at present operating as a commercial enterprise and located near shops and a train station.
    The childcare centre proposed at 26 Beattie Ave is in a R2 Low Density Residential Zone, a neighbourhood of residential housing where commercial businesses were never allowed and should not be allowed. Childcare centres seem to be popping up everywhere and while I understand why there is a need for them, they need to be built in appropriate areas taking into account the needs of parents who will be using these facilities. They would be best suited near transport links so parents could easily drop off and pick up on their way to and from work. Close proximity to primary schools also makes sense but randomly placed in residential streets makes no sense at all. Government planners need to think ahead about the effects on infrastructure before they push ahead with large scale developments as it seems like it comes as an afterthought. My biggest concern is how is the government, state and local going to address the problem of supplying clean water to all these extra people being crammed into Sydney.
    It is never a waste of time to speak up about something that you think is entirely wrong and I do totally understand your frustration at what is happening around us because I feel it too.

  6. In Denistone East NSW on “Construction of new 73...” at 26 Beattie Ave Denistone East NSW 2112:

    Barry Shirley commented

    I hate to say this but you are all wasting your time in trying to stop any City of Ryde consideration to take notice of your objections. We have been battling a ridiculous development on 2 - 6 Chatham Road West Ryde which council has just endorsed in favour of the Developer. On a 1900m2 block they are allowing a 7 storey apartment block and are going to change all the DCP controls including FSR reduction to allow more cramped apartments. Their reward is to receive 3 of these apartments for Council use. The now 7 storey building (which was previously zoned for 4 storeys) is right next door to residential houses, the West Ryde hotel and a child care centre on the corner. We (nearly 70 people who submitted objections) were invited to watch the Council meeting on Zoom (August 25) to see the proposal discussed by council. We waited over 3 hours to witness a council meeting in complete disarray with a Mayor who not stick to the agenda and had no control over council members wasting time liking the sound of their own voices. They ran out of time and held a meeting on September 1 (in which the public had no access) and endorsed the plan in spite of their own technical department and a report from G M Urban Design telling them the development was not appropriate for ths site.
    As far as any invitation for the people of Ryde to have a say in future Planning Controls - don't waste your time. It will mean nothing with this council who will roll over for developers.

  7. In Denistone East NSW on “Construction of new 73...” at 26 Beattie Ave Denistone East NSW 2112:

    Joel Wilson commented

    I have been a resident of Beattie Avenue for over 12 years, with a good feel and knowledge of the residents living in the street and their diverse needs and requirements. I am also a long term employee of a school/early learning centre in Sydney’s Inner West. With my background, I feel I am reasonably equipped to pass an informed judgement on the suitability of this proposal.

    It is extremely clear this proposal does not meet NSW Government planning objectives in this instance.
    • ensure that child care facilities are compatible with the existing streetscape, context and neighbouring land uses. (Impossible! When Beattie Avenue is 100% residential, combining villas, freestanding houses built from circa 1950)
    • minimise any adverse impacts of development on adjoining properties and the neighbourhood, including the natural and built environment. (Impossible! When the site is adjoined by over 6 properties inhabited by multiple people of a diverse nature.

    These points are excluding other obvious impacts on the Beattie Avenue community. The outrageous scale of the proposal will certainly bring negative impacts on traffic congestion, noise, privacy and lack of on street parking for existing residents. The likely 7am-7pm operational hours of the business would also be of particular concern, as these times are often when the residential community are out enjoying healthy physical and mental interactions by walking, talking and playing.

    Beattie Avenue is a wonderfully diverse, happy, prosperous residential community. It is a lovely place to live!!!! Please do not let a commercial proposal such as this pass, or I fear the residents, their well-being and their street will never be the same.

  8. In Denistone East NSW on “Construction of new 73...” at 26 Beattie Ave Denistone East NSW 2112:

    Anne Paton commented

    I strongly oppose this application, given the Council's website states the rules and regulations covering this type of application. For the lifle of me I can not understand why this application has been put forward. when Ryde Councils rules and regulations do not allow for this kind of application.
    I am 70 years old and a carer of an elder that has a serious medical condition, both of us will be impacted by this application, as we live next door in 24 Beattie Ave.
    We downsized our home many years ago so we could live out our life in peace and quiet, close to Doctors, Hospitals, and transport for when we can no longer drive.
    It is already difficult to exit our driveway because of an increase in traffic now, this application will make our lives more stressful.
    I hope Ryde Council applies its rules and regulations to stop this application.
    Regards
    Anne Paton

  9. In Denistone East NSW on “Construction of new 73...” at 26 Beattie Ave Denistone East NSW 2112:

    Glenis Hill commented

    I strongly oppose this application firstly on the basis that it does not comply with Ryde Council guidelines for childcare centres and secondly on the basis of the impact it is likely to have on the surrounding residents, streets and area.
    Ryde Council’s website states that :
    1) Preferred locations are sites with the least number of adjoining properties.
    26 Beattie Ave has seven different neighbours adjoining this property.
    2) Sites adjoining town houses, villas and flats are not considered suitable due to
    increased potential for amenity impacts.
    There are three villas located next door at number 24 Beattie Avenue and three
    individual houses that back onto 26 Beattie Ave.
    I live in a villa at number24 and oppose this development for a number of reasons.
    1/ more traffic using Beattie Avenue to add to the traffic taking a 'shortcut' to Midway Shopping centre or Macquarie Shopping Centre many of who travel faster than the speed limit.
    2/There is already a lot of lot litter dropped by traffic which I think would get worse.
    3/The Water and Sewerage use would be increased adding to the community infrastructure demands.
    4/ Traffic to a proposed child care centre would increase traffic on Beattie Avenue both for morning (before 9) children being taken to child care and those collected from 3-4pm.
    Also the delivery of food and education equipment during the day and the size of those vehicles impact on noise to surrounding residents and wear to roads.
    5/ There are already 5X3 bedroom villas in Beattie Ave =1car/villa =15 cars plus 'the second car parked on the street + the children have a car= ??
    Beattie Avenue seems smaller /more narrow every time another car is added.
    Many streets in Ryde are suffering from this problem, so the area problems increase.
    6/ Noise pollution is already experienced by 'flight paths' over Ryde even in this 'Covid time' of less jets flying over.
    I am one of the older residents living in the area and would agree that additions to Beattie Ave would not be good for me.

  10. In Denistone East NSW on “Construction of new 73...” at 26 Beattie Ave Denistone East NSW 2112:

    Vicki Johnson commented

    I strongly oppose this application firstly on the basis that it does not comply with Ryde Council guidelines for childcare centres and secondly on the basis of the impact it is likely to have on the surrounding residents, streets and area.
    Ryde Council’s website states that :
    1) Preferred locations are sites with the least number of adjoining properties.
    26 Beattie Ave has seven different neighbours adjoining this property.
    2) Sites adjoining town houses, villas and flats are not considered suitable due to
    increased potential for amenity impacts.
    There are three villas located next door at number 24 Beattie Avenue and three
    individual houses that back onto 26 Beattie Ave.
    3) Where sites are located within low density residential areas, preference is given to
    smaller scale development ( under 50 child care places).
    26 Beattie Ave is proposing 73 places and the area is zoned R2 Low Density
    Residential.
    4) Major trees on adjacent properties particularly those within 9m of subject site.
    There is a very large silky oak on one of the properties to the rear of the site that is
    within 9m of the boundary and numerous other large trees on another
    property to the rear as well.
    5) Sources of nuisance - flight paths
    The site is located under a regular flight path which sees a lot of traffic during normal
    times, even during a pandemic.
    6) Underground parking is not permitted in low density residential areas
    Parking and driveway is not to dominate the street scape.
    The proposal for 26 Beattie Ave is for basement parking / underground parking.
    7) In low density residential areas child care centres are encouraged to be single story
    in height for reasons of safety and access.
    Further to this child care centres are not advised to be built in close proximity of arterial roads. Blaxland Road is an arterial road and located at the end of Beattie Avenue.
    Beattie Ave and Haig Ave have become rat runs for traffic and with the ever increasing development that we are seeing this is only going to get worse. A child care centre located at this site will increase this and push more onto surrounding streets.
    The amenity of those living close to this proposed child care will be dramatically changed for the worse. There are a lot of older residents who are at home during the day who will be adversely affected by noise each day and though the hours have not been listed child care centres are generally open early for drop offs and close late for pick ups. At present it is a quiet neighbourhood especially during the week and nobody wants to see this change. Child care centres are better located near or in the grounds of a primary school.

  11. In Ryde NSW on “Proposed Strata subdivision...” at 6 Buna St Ryde NSW 2112:

    Vicki Johnson commented

    I agree wholeheartedly with Lorraine Russo about the lack of consultation and information given on developments happening in the Ryde Council area. We have a knockdown and rebuild next door to us being handled by a Private Certifier and we have found the whole process very secretive. Trying to contact the certifier to speak to someone about what is happening on site seems to be a road block and council have washed their hands of it as it is being handled by a Private Certifier! Very frustrating!
    Under the SEPP developments are being fast tracked and pushed through with no comment allowed even from direct neighbours on how it will affect them.
    Developments are of course meant to comply but this is very questionable. It is way too late when the building works are well under way or indeed almost finished.

  12. In Macquarie Park NSW on “Change of use of the ground...” at 5 Byfield St Macquarie Park NSW 2113:

    Jonathan commented

    So good Hillsong Church Macquarie Extension Service bought this building :)

  13. In Ryde NSW on “Proposed Strata subdivision...” at 6 Buna St Ryde NSW 2112:

    Lorraine Russo commented

    It’s a bit ludicrous to forward a development submission around to neighbours for comment, when the building work is almost complete. It doesn’t really matter what we say does it?

  14. In Macquarie Park NSW on “Approval is sought for a...” at 122 Herring Rd Macquarie Park NSW 2113:

    Jason Chen commented

    According the report by https://www.realestate.com.au/news/suburbs-tallest-residential-building-coming-to-macquarie-park/, the approved development of 143 Herring Rd, Macquarie Park will "will hold the record for the tallest residential building" "at 23 storeys" with "285 apartments".

    This council's commitment to higher density living seems will not be impacted by this website or the related comments on this or similar pages at: https://www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/1369881

    I've heard rumours that the new development has allocated space for residents on social security benefits like Centrelink who may take the space for granted or as their right (funded by taxpayers) and hence affect the standard of living around the precinct & the perception of the living space (and related property prices for the investor)

  15. In Putney NSW on “Section 4.55(1A) to modify...” at 13 Wade St Putney NSW 2112:

    Sharon Whitbourn commented

    These are well established trees, what reason could there be to remove them. We lose far too many. Do they pose a threat? I don’t think so. What is the agenda here?

  16. In Putney NSW on “Section 4.55(1A) to modify...” at 13 Wade St Putney NSW 2112:

    Honey Davies commented

    There is no logical reason yo remove those trees. Unless, of course the DA is pending a change to add a pool.....

    The trees should remain.

  17. In Meadowbank NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1 Railway Rd Meadowbank NSW 2114:

    Nicole commented

    I object to this development. There are too many apartments in the area already and further residential development is not required. The streets cannot cope with the volume of traffic passing the suburb, and there is not much space between all the recently built apartments. Many of the apartments that have recently been completed seem to be empty, as developers / real estate agents continue to try and encourage people to buy the apartments. There is a glut in Meadowbank, as well as surrounding suburbs such as Ryde and Rhodes. The addition of further developments will contribute to more congestion on the roads and public transport. In addition, a boarding house is inappropriate for the area. Developers are keen to squeeze in boarding houses wherever they can without considering the impact to the area and quality of life. For example, there is also a boarding house development application for 16 Walker St in Rhodes, which is a very narrow site in between apartment buildings. There is no need to develop every bit of land available.

  18. In West Ryde NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 85 Anzac Ave West Ryde NSW 2114:

    Jeanne commented

    G'day! The community has obviously opposed to this proposal. Am curious as to what the next step is?

  19. In West Ryde NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 85 Anzac Ave West Ryde NSW 2114:

    Elizabeth LH commented

    The summary by Brian Hastie is detailed and to the point. The community has responded and rejected the proposal.

    Taking these points and the arguments submitted by others, this proposal cannot be sustained.

  20. In West Ryde NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 85 Anzac Ave West Ryde NSW 2114:

    Brian Hastings commented

    1. Objection that the building height exceeds, by over one-third, the statutory building height prescribed under Ryde Local Environmental Plan 2014 for this location.
    The City of Ryde Height of Buildings Map Sheet HOB_003: shows the building height limit for 85 Anzac Avenue and generally that side of the street is 11.5 metres. However, LDA2020/0273 shows a proposed building height of 15.95 metres. This is 3.45 metres above the allowable limit in the Ryde Local Environmental Plan 2014 for this location.
    Notwithstanding that clause 29(4) of the ARH SEPP provides a source of power for a consent authority to vary a development standard without the need for a written request under Clause 4.6 of Ryde Local Environmental Plan 2014; this 38.6% exceedance of the allowable height limit is over one-third higher than the 11.5 metres permitted for this location. As such it is significantly out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood.
    This major non-compliance to the allowable height limit will impact on the amenity of the neighbours in terms of reduced privacy, excessive shadowing, increased light pollution at night and the increased potential for noise transmission from the top level communal open space to the wider neighbourhood.

    2. Objection that the justification basis for the LDA2020/0273 is for Student accommodation, however there is no requirement to enforce this or limit the maximum stay of future residents.
    The proposed student accommodation is claimed to provide modern and convenient short term accommodation as an alternative (acknowledging the required minimum 3 month stay under the ARH SEPP) form of low cost rental housing for students. Prior to entering into an Occupancy Agreement, the Boarding House Manager is to confirm with a prospective resident that they are obligated to reside within the boarding room for a period of no less than three months.
    However there is no requirement that the residents are in fact students. There is also no requirement for a maximum length of stay. Therefore the assumptions and calculations relating to students for LDA2020/0273 are invalid as they assume the residents are students, when in fact the residents could be more representative of the general population who are seeking low cost rental housing.

    3. Objection that there is insufficient on-site parking provided for the proposed number of rooms. Re. State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009
    As a resident of Anzac Avenue since 1997, I have extensive experience of the local car parking and traffic issues for our household and visitors. On street car parking in Anzac Avenue is normally fully occupied during weekdays due to commuters utilising West Ryde Rail Station. Car parking in Anzac Avenue is also normally fully occupied at nights when residents return home from work or study.
    The ARHSEPP requirements for 27 rooms at a rate of 0.5 car spaces per boarding room, results in a total of 13.5 spaces being required. Four car spaces are proposed to be provided on-site (including an accessible space). This does not satisfy the numerical parking requirement as detailed in SEPP subclause 29(2).
    Notwithstanding that a dedicated car share is proposed, along with provision of a shared car, the Traffic and Parking Assessment (20056) references locations in proximity of Randwick to UNSW. This reference is not considered valid for 85 Anzac Avenue. The nearest education facility that would be a candidate for student accommodation is Macquarie University, which is over 6km away and there is no direct bus route. This journey by car is much more attractive. The nearest TAFE colleges (Ryde and Meadowbank) are more than 800m away and are considered unlikely to be a candidate for student accommodation due to the part time nature of their mostly artisan courses.
    As mentioned in Objection 2 above, there is no requirement for the boarding house residents to be limited to students. Therefore the reference used (i.e. the UNSW student precinct of Randwick) to justify not meeting the numerical parking requirement as detailed in SEPP subclause 29(2), is not justified.
    Without a specific requirement that the proposed boarding house residents be students, they could be more representative of the general Ryde population. The community profile published by Ryde Council https://profile.id.com.au/ryde/car-ownership shows that in 2016: 41% of households in Ryde had access to two or more motor vehicles. Even if only half of the proposed rooms had access to a motor vehicle that would equate to about 14 car spaces being required (this is consistent with the ARHSEPP requirements).
    For the above mentioned reasons, it is considered almost certain, that with 27 rooms, more than 4 car spaces will be required. Unless there is more on-site parking or less overall residents, this would result in a significant increase in cars requiring parking on Anzac Avenue (up to 10 additional car spaces). This would add to local traffic congestion, impact on local road safety and detract from the local amenity by reducing available parking for the existing residents and visitors.

    4. Objection to the layout and design
    It is noted that none of the buildings in this part of Anzac Avenue exceed the 11.5 metres height limit (Ref Objection 1). The proposed development has communal open space on the top level that overlooks Anzac Avenue from a height of approximately 15 metres. Despite the proposed setback the potential effects from this layout would be reduced privacy and a detrimental effect to our amenity for quiet enjoyment.
    Consideration should be given to reducing the building height and flipping the top level floor plan (180 degrees) to put the manager’s residence at the front to reduce the potential for noise transmission out to the street.

    5. Objection that there are no facilities for residents who smoke or an enforceable management plan to prevent smoking to drift onto the street area.
    The Plan of Management House Rules state in part: “The premises is smoke-free and as such, smoking is not permitted inside the rooms or in any communal recreation or common areas and any open space of the building.” Whilst this itself is not objectionable, there is no requirement or management plan for where smokers can smoke and how they dispose of their cigarette butts.
    It is noted that ‘No Smoking’ or ‘Smoke Free Premises’ signage is to be displayed in all common areas of the premises. However it is highly likely that the number of residents that smoke will be consistent with community averages. The 2019 National Drug Strategy Household Survey report showed that an average 11% of Australians smoke daily. At this rate and with 47 residents there would be approximately 5 residents who smoke. The average number of cigarettes per day for Australia is 13. Therefore there would be a requirement to provide disposal facilities for approximately 65 (5 x 13) cigarette butts per day and a total of 23,725 butts per year. However there is no requirement for this in the Plan of Management.
    Ref: https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/7ebfd47a-9063-4ae0-b22f-1aeff56a30dc/aihw-phe-270-Chapter2-Tobacco.pdf.aspx
    In addition to the potential for littering of cigarette butts, there would be a significant increase in the number of people smoking in the vicinity of Anzac Avenue (outside the boarding house). This is considered to be a public health risk for local residents and will certainly have a negative impact on our local amenity. For my wife who suffers from asthma it would mean closing our windows and doors to avoid passive smoke. This also has the detrimental effect of preventing fresh air in our front bedroom, further aggravating her symptoms. In addition it is highly likely that smoking on the street will be a social activity and will involve additional noise as smokers converse into the night.
    6. This DA is on the border of the high density and low density residential zone. As such the full effects of the exceedances in building height, lack of parking, overshadowing, increased noise, increased traffic and the safety issue of passive smoke inhalation will be felt by residents in a low density residential zone. This DA is inappropriate, unacceptable and should be rejected in it's entirety.

  21. In West Ryde NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 85 Anzac Ave West Ryde NSW 2114:

    Belinda commented

    Is there a Public Protest organised for this? There should be! There is already four social housing developments on the block of the proposed development site. Another development of this type will adversely affect property prices, parking, and noise and neighbourhood appeal. It’s not right for one suburb to get more than its fair share of social/affordable housing. We need to picket Ryde council to stop the concentration of poverty in small geographical locale. If council members lived in the immediate area they wouldn’t be supporting the proposal! It’s Completely unacceptable!!

  22. In Meadowbank NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1 Railway Rd Meadowbank NSW 2114:

    Anil Shukla commented

    There has been so much development in Meadowbank area already. Another large development is being constructed in Melrose Park. No additional infrastructure or public green space has been added resulting in existing facilities over crowded and overused.

  23. In Meadowbank NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1 Railway Rd Meadowbank NSW 2114:

    Matt commented

    This development would likely bring around 500 extra people to Meadowbank (added to the 10,000s with the other new developments that have popped up). The infrastructure is already at breaking point (pre-covid you could barely squeeze onto a train to the city). This little corner of Meadowbank is one of the last little pieces that isn't cramped full of high-rise high-density ant colony housing, it's a little oasis where you can have a coffee and relax in peace. I am concerned about the pollution (including noise) all this high density living causes. It may not be healthy to live in such an environment. I would like to oppose this development, for the sake of human dignity. We are not ants and can't live like them... (but I do like ants, they are pretty cool).

  24. In Meadowbank NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1 Railway Rd Meadowbank NSW 2114:

    Jo commented

    No no no. Once all the apartments on wharf road, Melrose park and the apartments currently still under construction in Meadowbank are completed the already hectic traffic around the train station will be chaos. We don’t need that many Extra apartments added to the chaos unless new roads to cater for all the added traffic are going to be included. A lot of people also come to the area for weekend sport and it is getting harder for Local residents’ visitors to Find a park when visiting.

  25. In Meadowbank NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1 Railway Rd Meadowbank NSW 2114:

    Kev.N commented

    Dear City of Ryde,

    As an owner and resident of Meadowbank I strongly object to the proposal. As aligned to comments above in addition to all the existing new residential developments occurring i.e. around 102 Bowden St close to the Constitutional Road round about.

    There really is no needs for more residential complex introduced as the existing infrastructure already doesn't support the amount of ever increasing daily traffic. Currently the rental vacancies are already very high so we do not know the full magnitude of the traffic/congestions.

    The upgrading of the retail area around the station could be a nice touch however I really oppose the notion of more residential units and boarding houses as it is not aligned with education precinct being built nearby and for the safety of the students. Meadowbank used to be a very pleasant area and really do wish the council of Ryde hears the voice of the residents and not let this happen.

    The area could definitely do with more improvements to the road like installation of more pedestrian crossing and speed camera/bumps especially around Bowden and Nancarrow Roads similar Walker St at Rhodes.

  26. In Denistone NSW on “New two storey dwelling and...” at 14 Anzac Ave Denistone NSW 2114:

    Christine Sellers commented

    Hi there,
    We enquire to the new residential dwelling construction at 14 Anzac Avenue, Denistone.
    We live near the back of the property at the bottom of the hill that leads down from this property at Villa 10/22-26 Anzac Avenue, Denistone.
    We notice construction has started and we did not receive any alert/notification of this property application. We are concerned at how this property development will affect us in the event of heavy rains.
    Can information on this application be sent to us please.
    Thank you
    Christine Sellers

  27. In West Ryde NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 85 Anzac Ave West Ryde NSW 2114:

    Kate Z commented

    I would like to object to the proposed development at 85 Anzac Avenue - the lastest in a series of council approvals designed to benefit property developers over the community.

    The proposed facade is jarring, and characterless, and seeks to push a large number of people into a small block of land (note the need to breach the statutory building limit). The continual approval of buildings of this nature, is destroying the character of the suburb.

    If the council actually cares for the suburb they have a duty to protect, they will not facilitate such over-development. People do not want to live in or around concrete jungles, they are forced to do so. Protecting the light, space and nature of west ryde, a growing rarity in Sydney, will ensure the worth of the suburb is maintained, and continues to grow in the future.

  28. In West Ryde NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 85 Anzac Ave West Ryde NSW 2114:

    Claire E commented

    I am strongly opposed to the development. The proposal has insufficient parking, does not match the aesthetic of the street and will severely impact access to sunlight.
    The boarding house residence common area should have a requisite 3 hours of daylight in winter. But what about the surrounding residences? Should we not also be entitled to 3 hours of sunshine. The proposed building exceeds current buildings by a significant margin and will significantly impact my access to light.
    Additionally the acoustic report conveys alarming details of surrounding residence being impacted by common room noise travel. Recommendations to remove the noise are insufficient.
    The transient nature and lack of a minimum stay will change the tone of the neighbourhood and area. There is a nice community feel that is likely to alter drastically with the inclusion of transient accomodation. The proposed building is intended to service Mac Uni but there are no direct transport links to the uni. The proposal is absurd.

  29. In Eastwood NSW on “Removal of two trees,...” at 30 Trelawney St Eastwood NSW 2122:

    Barbara Buining commented

    From the photograph accompanying the map, this house already has a driveway and a garage on the left. Has the property become dual occupancy to require an additional driveway and carport, and the destruction of yet another significant mature tree? What happened to Ryde Council's tree preservation policy? I object to this proposal.

  30. In Ryde NSW on “Proposed Amalgamation of...” at 743 Victoria Rd Ryde NSW 2112:

    Fletcher simpkins commented

    Further to the previous comments, the volume of apartments in the area have added significantly to the congestion in the Ryde council area. As these apartments also include a commercial space at the bottom, how will customers and residents manage to get in and out of the buildings at such a busy intersection? Also, who will buy an apartment there? There is already an oversupply of apartments from Church St to Hillcrest Ave specifically and in Ryde Council area more generally. This will just be another empty eyesore. More green space!

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