Recent comments

  1. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 22 Garners Avenue Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Petra Jones commented

    I strongly object to DA 201400362.02. This is a significant deviation from the original DA201400362 in that the attic room willin effect become a third floor if the requested inclusion of sliding doors and fixed windows to the height of 2723cm and an almost continual width of 10000 cm and accompanying balconies is approved.

    The second amended DA does not satisfy the concerns of privacy issues raised in the various objections to DA201400362.01. The attic windows in the approved DA are frosted glass of 460cm high and 3680cm wide. The interior of the Attic window consists of a staircase (and a built in wardrobe), ensuring privacy to all neighbours.

    The second amended DA is seeking to replace the existing approved windows withfixed and sliding windows of 2723cm high, for all three properties with widths of 2919cm, 3838cm and 3144cm. This is a dramatic increase in window size and eliminates any privacy previously afforded to the neighbouring properties.

    The proposed privacy screens of 1.6m height of which 1.4m is upward facing screen fixed at 45 degree followed by 20cm straight blades (to allow straight view and ventilation) do not provide visual privacy to neighbouring properties. The Australian Bureau of Statistics – Profiles of Health Australia, 2011 – 2013 findings support the inadequacy of the screening.

    In 2011-12, the average Australian man (18 years and over) was 175.6 cm tall and the average Australian woman was 161.8 cm tall.

    On average, Australians are growing taller and heavier over time. Between 1995 and 2011-12, the average height for men increased by 0.8 cm and for women by 0.4 cm.
    In general, older people are shorter than younger people with the average male aged 75 years and over (169.7 cm) being 8.1 cm shorter than one aged 18-24 years (177.8 cm). Women aged 75 years and over (155.7 cm) were also 8.1 cm shorter than women aged 18-24 years (163.8 cm) on average.
    The average height of both men and women is above that provided by the privacy screens meaning that they will actually overlook the privacy screens.

    In addition, I don’t believe the privacy screens meet the requirements stipulated under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 version 5 August 2016.
    Part 2 Division 1 Subdivision 31 Privacy Screens, Clause 2.62 Developmental standards states:
    (1) The standards specified for that development are that the development must:

    (a) if attached to a balcony, deck, patio, terrace or verandah—be at least 1.7m, but not more than 2.2m, above the finished floor level of that development, and
    (b) if located on the ground—be not higher than 2.5m above ground level (existing), and
    (c) be no longer than 5m, and
    (d) be located at least 900mm from each lot boundary, and
    (e) be located in the rear yard.

    22 Garners Avenue has now been subdivided into three lots. The privacy screens displayed in the amended DA are not in keeping with requirement (d) 90mm from each lot boundary. In addition, the privacy screens would be an almost continual block of 10 meters making it visually unappealing to the rear and back neighbouring properties.

    I note that Page 42 of the Statement of Environmental Effects (SoEE), Air Movement states (original DA) ‘ There are also highlight windows at the front and rear of the rear of the attic level for great ventilation and access to ambient light, so the applicant has acknowleged the changes cannot be for this reason

    Streetscape /character

    Page 27 of the SoEE (original DA), states:- “ Whilst we have adopted an attic level in our attached houses, we have contained this to within the roof scape and behind the ridge. The amended DA seeks to increase the bulk and height of both the attic roof and add extra bulk with the attachment of three balconies. Again, this negatively impacts on the neighbouring properties and the increased bulk will be visable from the side aspects for lots 22B and 22.

    We use our backyard as a means of escape from the hustle and bustle of the street. I cannot stress enough the negative impact that a third floor with sliding doors and balconies will have on the privacy and lifestyle of all neighbours. I thank the Council for rejecting the first amended DA and implore them to reject this second amended DA.


  2. In Lewisham NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 60 The Boulevarde Lewisham NSW 2049:

    Scott MacArthur commented

    The Marrickville Heritage Society is concerned that the heritage values of this important Victorian Terrace house have not been adequately investigated, assessed, or respected in the proposed development. The terrace dates from 1878, making it probably the oldest extant building in The Boulevarde, and a stand-out contributor to the Lewisham Estate Heritage Conservation Area. The proposals require alterations to the street facade of the building, which cannot be supported. The documentation for the other internal works and extension are lacking in detail that make an accurate assesment of the potential impacts on the subject terrace, and the adjoining building, impossible.
    The Society notes that the Statement of Heritage Impact for this important heritage building has not been prepared by a heritage consultant, and has not been prepared in accordance with the established format provided by the NSW Heritage Division.
    The Society therefore requests that the application is not approved until a revised proposal is provided with additional clarifying documentation and information, with the deletion of works that will have an adverse impact on the heritage values of the house, the adjoining terrace, and the Heritage Conservation Area. The Statement of Heritage Impact should be updated to include a proper assessment of the importance of the property and its curtilage, and how the works will protect these heritage values.

    Marrickville Heritage Society

  3. In Parramatta NSW on “Change of use of an...” at 39 Campbell Street Parramatta NSW 2150:

    Ben Hura commented

    Leave it as a heritage listed residential dwelling for the benefit of he community. Find someone willing to restore it to its original heritage splendour so that generations to come can enjoy it. Soon we will lack any houses in the parramatta cbd so please consider protecting this as an actual house. I'm sure that this medical consulting faculty could find other premises that are better suited to their purposes without having to alter the use of such a beautiful piece of Parramatta's history.

  4. In Mc Kinnon VIC on “Construction of 34 three...” at 1 Adelaide Street Mckinnon VIC 3204:

    Trudi commented

    Totally agree with Warwick and Mary, the over development of suburbs is getting beyond a joke. The infrastructure isn't there. Reducing the number of statutory requirements of car spaces is ridiculous. People have to have cars because our public transport system cannot support the community as it stands. The ratio of car spaces needs to be at least 1 for every bedroom.

  5. In Knoxfield VIC on “Development of property for...” at 48 Rickards Avenue, Knoxfield VIC 3180:

    Trudi Pitches commented

    Pathetic, cramming more buildings into an area that has no infrastructure to support the increase. The next request will be to reduce the statutory requirements of car spaces.

    Has anyone not noticed that the entire area between Scoresby Rd, Ferntree Gully Rd, Stud Rd and High St/Burwood Hwy does not have any traffic control to allow people to get out of their streets. Kathryn Rd and Ftg Rd, grid locked because nobody had the forethought to put the pedestrian crossing for the skate park on this intersection instead. I believe the residents of the area at the time argued for this.

    Just love the signs up around the area stating that Knox Council are making improvements. The upgrades on the water supply has to happen because they wouldn't be able to justify the over development.

    As a resident of this area for 15 years, I did not and will never vote a Real Estate agent into office of the Knox Council.

  6. In Saratoga NSW on “The Removal OF One...” at 4 Omeo Street, Saratoga NSW 2251:

    Allison Stewart commented

    I am unsure how a plant that is listed on the Office of Environment and Heritage as having 'Vulnerable' status, is able to be removed? Please see link
    Eucalyptus nicholii is a potential koala feed tree and it would be a shame to see such a special tree removed for some unjustifiable reason such as leaf litter...

  7. In Carnegie VIC on “Thirty Nine (39) Lot...” at 22 Jersey Parade Carnegie VIC 3163:

    Mary Arulappan commented

    There were 4 families on these blocks making for a serene neighbourhood with character. This will now have 39 households - almost tenfold the emissions, household waste, greenhouse gases - none of which enhances the neighbourhood, none of which has the local residents & tax payers singing "hallelujah". Yet another development not needed, yet another blight on the landscape, yet another application out of kilter with the community sentiment.

    Will this developer have the required parking as per requirements for 2 & 3 bed apartments? There needs to be disclosure.

    This is unwarranted development not consonant with the character of thie suburb.

  8. In Mc Kinnon VIC on “Construction of 34 three...” at 1 Adelaide Street Mckinnon VIC 3204:

    Mary Arulappan commented

    This is excessive for the area & is wrecking the streetscape & the neighbourhood. I object to this development.

    There needs to be visibility of the parking that the developer will provide. As well as an impact statement on the neighbourhood.

    Regardless, this is not the kind of development the community wants. And their view & sentiment needs to be considered as they are the legitimate constituents. Not the developer!

  9. In Mc Kinnon VIC on “Construction of 34 three...” at 1 Adelaide Street Mckinnon VIC 3204:

    Warrick Pearson commented

    This application to build 34 x3 storey dwellings is extremely excessive, and is grossly out of step with the neighbourhood character (especially the one that used to exist) as well as with community expectations. The developer appears only to be interested in profit, and not the impact on the community, nor the unfortunate legacy that such a development will have on neighbourhood character, on street parking congestion and surrounding properties. There is no information provided under the search GE/PP-29502/2016/A regarding how many parking spots will be provided off street, but given the proposal it ought to be providing a minimum 2 car spaces per dwelling. It is time to put the brakes on such examples of rampant over development, that show no regard for the impact on the community - only short term gain.

  10. In Burwood NSW on “Enlarge approved 3-bedroom...” at 39 Conder Street Burwood NSW 2134:

    Pauline Forrester commented

    With regard to Development Application No 2017.33 at 39-41 Conder St, Burwood, please consider the following points:
    • Height of building
    The proposal admits that the building exceeds the height requirements by a significant amount – 6.41m (ie 46% more than the regulated height of 14m).
    The roof top garden is included as a storey; making the building 7 storeys high, including the 2 basement levels.
    The argument put forward seems to hinge on the argument that the shadowing effect would be worse if they were compliant. However, from my point of view as the immediate neighbour this argument holds no weight. (See my comments on the shadowing below.)
    There are no buildings in the surrounding area which exceed 2 stories. Across the road the building height is zoned as to be significantly restricted to only 8.2m, and a building of the proposed height would be anomalous to the area. Also, the closest multi-unit developments are over 200m away, not visible from the site, and in a different zoning area.
    Comments on ascetics and appearances are purely subjective and should not be accepted as valid arguments.
    There seems to be no valid reason for the height criteria to be breached.

    • Solar Access
    The proposal also fails the criteria in respect of solar access. From my position, it appears that I will not get any winter sun on any of my living areas. The shadows on my house are totally unacceptable.
    I have solar panels which have been in place for over 10 years, and under the proposal they will become totally ineffective during winter. Also, I presume they will also be adversely affected during summer.
    Most of the comments on shadowing refer to the impact differences on neighbours further away when looking at compliance with the height restriction. They seem to assume that I should be happy with their comment that “The setbacks of the development provide at least 3 hours direct sunlight to No 43 rear private open space.” This does not tell the full story – only part of my back yard will get sunlight, and even drying my clothes on the clothesline will be a major issue.
    The argument that it could be worse does not remove my dissatisfaction with the proposal, nor does it justify acceptance of the breach.

    • No mention of the existing easement
    From a previous application put forward for 41 Conder St, there was mention of the restriction necessary because of the easement which runs the length of the property adjacent to the boundary fence adjoin my property. I could not find any mention of this in the plans, and the carpark area will be totally blocking this position.
    Is there no longer any restrictions relating to the easement, or has it been conveniently overlooked?

    Overall, I would ask the Council to consider the impact that approval of this application may have on the future of any adherence to the criteria set by the Council, and to the heritage character of the appearance of the area. There seems to be very little regard by any developers in the area to take into consideration the rules and regulations set in place by the Council, or to consider the pride associated with these older houses and the character they instil in the overall area, which admittedly is changing rapidly in the area close to the central shopping area. I would ask that the Council try to limit the impact of this advance to a totally different image of multi-layered living; with no “heritage” and no reason for “pride”.
    I would, personally, ask that the Council do not approve this development as its impact on my living space would be significant.

  11. In Belrose NSW on “(insert details)” at 169 Forest Way, Belrose NSW 2085:

    William Frederick Pallister commented

    I asked Northern Beaches Council whether they had information regarding a development application for an aged care facility / retirement home or equivalent.

    They effectively gave me a treasure map and told me to go hunt.
    Separately, I have learned of the existence of:
    Application Number: DA2017/0237
    and I have submitted an objection to Council, to:

    1. The proposed development.

    2. The fact that neighbouring residents, who would experience loss of quiet enjoyment of their property and neighborhood during and subsequent to the proposed works, were not given any notification.

    It would be naïve in the extreme to consider that noise and traffic on the narrow roadway of Childs Circuit during the proposed work and for ever after would not impact negatively on the quiet enjoyment of neighboring residents and the values of their properties.
    I have not, would not and will not make a donation or inducement to council, a councillor or council employee, who I am sure are adequately remunerated to do a job.

  12. In Cooranbong NSW on “Fuel Storage Tank & 3 x...” at 50 Central Road, Cooranbong NSW 2265:

    Benjamin Reuter commented

    Generator #3 is very close to a multi-story dormitory, surrounded on almost three sides by it. There is no mention of the anticipated diesel smoke and noise levels in the sleeping areas.
    Perhaps shifting the generator away from windows and closer to the end of the building, so the fire stairs separate the two may reduce both smoke and noise?

  13. In Redland Bay QLD on “Combined Operational and...” at 75 Boundary Street, Redland Bay, QLD:

    Lucy Atkins commented

    Why is there a need for another petrol station, with another only 350 metres away? I have no idea why approval for a petrol station on the brow of a hill would be made, with traffic coming fast up the hill, and traffic already heavy on Boundary street.
    Anyway, all the trees have already been cut down-including koala eucalypts, which they could have tried to save.
    So disappointed in this council's development ruining Redlands.

  14. In Saint Peters NSW on “To carry out alterations to...” at 12 Hutchinson Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Jennifer KIllen commented

    Unfortunately the planning controls approved by the late Marrickville Council were designed to help their developer mates rather than look after the local community. Residents were misled by a glossy brochure showing Hutchinson Street as a tree-lined pedestrian shared access lane, with deceptive perspective suggesting that the 4-storey buildings were not much higher than small trees. However this developer proposes to ignore even these inadequate regulations.
    I quote from the Statement of Environmental Effects submitted by the applicant: "The proposed development does not comply with the maximum height of buildings (HoB) and the floor space ratio (FSR) controls applying to the site under MLEP 2011.
    ...The proposal is inconsistent with the DCP preferred split of 60% non-residential to 40% residential floor area."
    Apparently this quest for greater profit will, and I quote again, "... enhance and activate the streetscape in this section of St Peters."
    I presume the activation refers to bringing even more traffic into the street.
    The LEP did not of course, take account of the WESTCONNEX motorway now being built. Pollution from this monster road makes the area totally unsuitable for further residential development and especially for the proposed 28 x Two (2) Bedroom and 4 x Three (3) Bedroom. units.
    I assume that the proposed3 x Two (2) Bedroom + Study are just a ruse for squeezing in an extra bedroom that does not comply.
    I recommend everyone concern has a look at the documents provided on the council website.

  15. In Saratoga NSW on “The Removal OF One...” at 4 Omeo Street, Saratoga NSW 2251:

    Allison Stewart commented

    I am unsure how a plant that is listed on the Office of Environment and Heritage as having 'Vulnerable' status, is able to be removed? Please see link
    Eucalyptus nicholii is a potential koala feed tree and it would be a shame to see such a special tree removed for some unjustifiable reason such as leaf litter...

  16. In Connells Point NSW on “Additions And Alterations...” at 60 Queens Rd, Connells Point 2221 NSW:

    Amy Mortel commented

    Date: 13th of April 2017

    Attention: John Kavanah

    Re: Development application 60 Queens Rd, Connells Point

    Dear Sir,

    In relation to the development application for the above property, addition and alterations of existing single dwelling,
    Application number: 46/2017
    Applicant: Andrew Barrins.

    I, Ashley Mortel of [redacted] am writing in connection with the above development application. I have examined the plans and I know the site well. I wish to object strongly to the development of this site.
    The outlook and view from the upper and lower level from [redacted], will be drastically affected by this extension, as the balcony, back deck and rear yard face this extension the only outlook or view left by this extension will be of the north eastern brick wall and hipped roof, which is close to and runs along the boundary.
    The statement of environmental effects point 7, states that there will be no impact on the view currently enjoyed by neighboring residents, due to minimised increase of the overall height and scale of the building.
    The proposed addition drastically increases the overall size and scale of the building. The North Eastern elevation outlines the large brick wall with high hipped roof running along the boundary, this will close in on the view enjoyed from all aspects from the rear of [redacted],.
    The view of the bay, valley and tree lined suburb should be shared and this has already been consumed by over 50% due the development of 54,56 Queens Rd, this new development will infringe on roughly the other 50% of the view and outlook enjoyed from both the upper and lower levels of our property.
    As 60 Queens Rd, shares a boundary with [redacted], they are neighboring properties and I hope you would consider an alteration to the development, taking in the concerns I have with the overall size and scale of the building and the impact a development of this size will have on [redacted].
    I look forward to hearing from you in regards to the concerns raised in the letter.

  17. In Saint Peters NSW on “To carry out alterations to...” at 12 Hutchinson Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Rodney McShanag commented

    This building is to high abs too bulky I really think they should redesign a d fit into the street scape

  18. In Saint Peters NSW on “To carry out alterations to...” at 12 Hutchinson Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Alison schiena commented

    I don't believe a 4 story building should be approved next to single story homes. It will impact on privacy, sunlight , quality of life for current residents and will not fit with the current streetscape. 38 car spaces will increase traffic in an already congested area and could be a hazard. The impacts of west connect on traffic should also be considered on top of the current traffic and impact of this proposed development

  19. In Knoxfield VIC on “Development of property for...” at 48 Rickards Avenue, Knoxfield VIC 3180:

    Adrian De Angelis commented

    A complete over development of the site across from the Primary school which will create more dangerous traffic on an already busy road, Other developments have recently been knocked back for this exact reason.

    It is also not in keeping with the leafy aspect of the area.

  20. In Sandy Bay TAS on “4 Montgomery Court Sandy...” at 3 - 4 Montgomery Court Sandy Bay TAS 7005:

    Itay Sagi commented

    Hello and thanks in advance

    As the owner of Unit 2, 7 Montgomery Court Sandy Bay Tas 7005, I kindly request confirmation that the proposed Development Application for 3 - 4 Montgomery Court Sandy Bay TAS 7005 ___will not block Sunlight___.

    Please consider a Sun Analysis prior to approving this development application.

    Many Thanks!

  21. In Saint Peters NSW on “To carry out alterations to...” at 12 Hutchinson Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Sophia commented

    I don't think an exemption is appropriate in this instance. It is being built where originally there was a single story building. There are rows of original workers cottages that will be overshadowed by its structure. Even if somehow they aren't overshadowed, it would be nice to maintain the street scape of our local area in its original form. The stress on the area from increased traffic at a time when WestConnex is already going to drastically change things is a bad idea.

  22. In Saint Peters NSW on “To carry out alterations to...” at 12 Hutchinson Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Jessica Pickford commented

    This development pays no mind to the amenity of the surrounding area, its heritage, its more recent cultural heritage, or its potential as a creative hub for inner sydney.

    Hutchinson and applebee streets are not equipped to handle the extra traffic, and increased density and residential development, in conjunction with west connex, see this area set to be completely decimated by overdevelopment, with little thought for creating vibrant communities.

    It is not enough to simply create high density enclaves off newtown that intend to feed off of newtowns culture to rent and sell properties at a high price. Council and government should be investing in suburbs like st peters, in cultivating more exciting inner city suburbs. We cannot be a city of homogenous inner city medium density residential suburbs that stretch on forever. what a sad loss that would be.

  23. In Saint Peters NSW on “To carry out alterations to...” at 12 Hutchinson Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Dave commented

    - the height of this development is too tall and bulky and will overshadow surrounding properties.
    - the design doesn't seem to match the street scape and industrial heritage of St Peters.
    - traffic chaos will be added to significantly in an already crowded one way area.

  24. In on “Two Storey Dwelling” at 13 Pleasance Street, Box Hill NSW 2765:

    Anuj Poudyal commented

    Good evening,

    Could the number 13 be avoided? I will own this dwelling and was wondering if the house number could be changed

  25. In Kingscliff NSW on “Notified Development -...” at 8 Zephyr Street Kingscliff NSW 2487:

    Claire Prickett commented

    Urgent Attention please! I am the current owner of 4/13 Beach Street Kingscliff. I am writing to you to draw attention to this development which i believe to be illegal! My husband and myself have been away for the last month and returned to building work that is going on towards the rear of our property. I cannot believe that these plans have been passed! The main issue here is that there is literally only a meter between our rear fence and the new build! There should be at least a 4 meter gap between buildings for legal/ fire regulations. Also our neighbour Peggy Stok has spoken to the owners regarding aspects of the building that she was not happy about.. upon which they seem to have changed the layout/design of the building!! How is it possible to do that?! She also has concerns over the correct removal of asbestos from the pre-existing shed roof which is being converted to the new building. Also the new building is being built on stilts which means it is not on the same level as the ofiginal dwelling! I would like someone to please get back to me asap to discuss this matter and for the building work to be inspected before things go any further. I will also be speaking to my solicitor today about this matter as we do not believe it to be legal! Thank you, I look forward to your promt response. Also, it is very strange that our neighbour Peggy and ourselves never received a letter regarding planning applications for this property. We are the two properties most effected by this! Kindest regards, Claire Prickett. mobile: 0468464673

  26. In Cheltenham VIC on “Develop the land for the...” at 13 Jellicoe Street, Cheltenham, VIC:

    Gary R Boyd commented

    A thirty dwelling development is far to large for the area. There is inadequate street parking in the area now and this development will see another twenty to thirty more cars parked on the road as insufficient on site parking will be provided.

  27. In Gladesville NSW on “Demolition and Construction...” at 126 Victoria Rd, Gladesville, NSW:

    Stew Gladesville commented

    I will be writing to Ryde Council to express my objections to the planning proposal to demolish the existing office block at 126 Victoria Road, Gladesville, NSW, 2111 and construct a 66 room boarding house. My objection is on the basis the proposed development will adversely impact on-street parking and traffic congestion in Pearson Street, as detailed below.

    1. The single Pearson Street traffic study conducted on Tuesday 13 December 2016 is manifestly flawed and insufficient.

    A single days’ traffic study conducted on a Tuesday approaching the holiday period cannot be considered representative of traffic flows in any location. Furthermore, no mention is made of the increased traffic flow through Pearson Street that will result when developments are completed at 120 Victoria Road and Wharf Square.
    The car park entrance to the nearly completed unit block at 120 Victoria Road is accessed via Pearson Street. Any traffic study should forecast the increased traffic flow expected from the new residents of this 46 unit complex. Increased traffic flow due to customers of businesses located in the ground floor of newly completed Wharf Square is unaccounted for. Weekend traffic flow from the local church is similarly not considered in this Tuesday study.
    Section 6 of the Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment concludes “the site currently having four commercial premises would generate more traffic than the proposed small commercial space”. There is no justification for this assumption. No traffic study for that individual premise has been conducted. Furthermore, no traffic flows can be forecast for the proposed commercial space before it is determined what business will occupy that space. It is entirely plausible for a retail space attracting customers to the area to generate more traffic than an office block with a small number of workers. Such a comparison also fails to recognise the proposed development will generate traffic from residents in addition to the commercial space.

    2. No contemporary parking study or projected impact of developments on parking have been provided for Pearson Street.

    Section 5.1 of the Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment states “on street car parking spaces in Pearson Street in the vicinity of the subject site are moderately utilised at times, with available parking opportunities in the vicinity of the subject site”. This statement is not based on factual evidence. No mention is made of the numerous complaints Ryde City Council has received regarding access to parking in Pearson Street, nor the fact the local business Tennis Ranch has resorted to chaining its parking lot out of business hours to prevent desperate residents utilising the business’ parking spaces.
    No detailed parking study of Pearson Street appears to have been conducted. Increased stress on local parking conditions from the aforementioned developments at 120 Victoria Road and Wharf Square are again not planned for. In particular, it should be expected that retail space under the Wharf Road development will attract customers who will park in both Pearson Street and Wharf Road. Weekend parking from church visitors is again neglected. On-street parking in Pearson Street is currently at capacity at night and on weekends. To state parking is only moderately utilised is contrary to all available evidence.

    3. The number of planned car spaces does not meet the criteria specified in Part 9.3 of the Ryde Development Control Plan 2004.

    The proposed development includes just 14 car parking spaces for 66 boarding rooms. This achieves the absolute minimum criteria for car parking spaces (0.2 parking spaces per room) under SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. Section 4.3 of the Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment acknowledges a shortfall of three car parking spaces required for the size of the commercial premises yet states the number of parking spaces proposed is deemed adequate, noting “available on-street parking opportunities in Pearson Street”. As has already been established, no study has been conducted to support the assumption that on street parking is readily available. The proposal to include a number of car parking spaces below minimal requirements should be deemed unacceptable because it will force any overflow of parking onto already congested Pearson Street.

    4. The conclusion of the Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment that the proposed development can accommodate parking demand is flawed.

    Section 5.2 of the Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment states “parking demand resulting from the proposed development can be easily accommodated within the proposed on-site parking spaces, in addition to available on-street parking opportunities nearby”. It has already been established the proposed development does not meet minimal car parking requirements, providing car parking for just one fifth of residents and no car parking for the commercial premises. If each of the planned 66 boarding rooms results in just one additional vehicle to the area (an entirely logical proposal considering 90% of Sydney households owned one or more vehicle in 2015), a surplus of 52 vehicles would be forced onto Pearson Street and its surrounds. Since no data is available on what demographic the boarding house is intended to accommodate, it is flawed to assume that a mere 20% of residents will be motor vehicle owners. The conclusion there will be “no major impacts on parking in adjacent streets” therefore holds no credibility.

  28. In Redfern NSW on “Section 96(2) modification...” at 183 Regent Street Redfern NSW 2016:

    Christine commented

    The Bearded Tit is a welcoming inclusive space that encourages art and music within the community. Extended hours would see it available to a larger cross section of this community and enhance Sydneys lackluster nightlife.

  29. In Wolli Creek NSW on “Modification - addition of...” at 4 Magdalene Terrace, Wolli Creek NSW 2205:

    Skye Richmond commented

    Dear Bayside Council,

    I object to the revised modification to increase the building to include an additional 9 residential units and reconfiguration of basement 2 to include additional parking spaces as the increase in height will be detrimental to the use of of the outdoor pool by Proximity residence. The shadow from the building will reduce the amount of accessible hours to the pool due to the shadows. The original height plan for this building when the site was developed was 6 storeys of commercial offices taking this up to 11 stories of residential is not in line with the usage plan for the site and the residential ammenities. I realise this comment is beyond the submission date however I would like to also note that the instructions provided in the letter to residents were incorrect and did not lead the reader to the information on the website. In my opinion due to this error the notice should be resent to residents for them to have correct access to the information.

    Kind regards

  30. In Newtown NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 38 Newman Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Landage Wickramasinghe commented

    Whilst the proposal is of a high standard, it is submitted that the rear roof deck is extremely dominating in this particular location and will greatly diminish the little high level ambient light emanating from the northern sky, particularly morning sun from the east, available to number 36 Newman Street, as the Tram Sheds are so dominant on the northern horizon.
    Proposed Site Plan as derived from DA Submission
    The parapet of the proposed Roof Terrace and first floor bedroom is 6.6m above the existing rear garage. It is submitted that if this was moved towards Newman Street, over the southern end of the Great Room, then Number 36 would receive the benefit of high level ambient light.
    The application is opposed in its current form. An amendment, as indicated above, would be acceptable. Council is requested to give due consideration to this request.We have emailed the architects proposed amendments to as this portal does not allow upload of documents.

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