All recent comments on applications from Ku-ring-gai Council, NSW

This property was beautiful when it was sold, the new owners have decimated the garden and the facade of the house.

They have illegally removed gums from the front of the property which was reported to council.

Vandalised the house so they can build another property. Council should be more viligent with this practice.

As we have had commuter parking in Coonanbarra Road from the Station as far down as Burns Road and in surrounding streets for many years, together with the fact there are already four [4] schools on this side of the railway line accommodating a range of ages from Preschool to Year 6 I feel that the Proposed Development will make it extremely difficult for local residents who wish to park for longer than 2 or 3 hours reasonably close to the Station to access parking.
I have been a resident of Wahroonga for 67 years.

such a great location for a child care..

I understand there will be a DA for another in Kintore st for 85 children.

This is a residential area and as it is there are a large number of schools in the area which make the traffic situation terrible in the mornings and evenings. Another child care centre or school is going to make it worse.

oh my god can u guys quit the yap just deal with it my god

Dear team,
Overall this looks like a fantastic development with a great living area floorplan. As immediate neighbours, on the West elevation, downhill from this development we request the following to be considered:-
1. The existing mature Murraya hedge on the Western boundary to be retained to ensure existing privacy maintained
2. The soil and sediment barrier looks good, but please ensure it is erected as soon as feasible, otherwise the slope of the block has potential to cause sediment and silt run off into our property during the construction phase
3. Please ensure the stormwater design is adequate for the usual 1 in 100 flood events; as there is a significant steep catchment area flowing directly towards us (as noted on the landscaping plan)
4. The fence between us has become dilapidated, so we support renewal; we request a high fence for further privacy and as we have a dog (if this could be done at the initial stage of construction it would be ideal); happy to discuss
5. We kindly request consideration over the choice of Vivid White for the house; this would become bright and glary in the sun, even through foliage, and some neighbours will look directly at it; a more muted colour would be appreciated, potentially keeping more in character with the bushland area and surrounding homes (a design control topic); especially considering the scale and verticality of the elevations. We had similar considerations for our recent development.
6. Please note that the chlorinated water from this pool needs to be carefully discharged during construction to avoid toxicity on the mature plants in our garden below (once prior this occurred, but since resolved)
Good luck,

Thanks, Gerard Loty

I am deeply concerned about the size of this build and the windows over looking the street, back gardens and side adjoining properties. The side windows are very tall but thin and there are 4 on one side and 6 on the other. They seem to have 2 in the middle which could be toilets but the four others look directly into the neighbours houses (both single story but potential future issues) and straight into neighbours gardens. I believe there has been a recent Pool addition in one of the neighbours which would now be over looked and all privacy will be lost. This cannot keep happening in this suburb. People keep getting away with building mansions and all privacy has been lost. These four windows would look not only in the neighbours property but other properties close to the house.

I fully object to this build, if not just the build the windows facing adjacent neighbours.

It is certainly a bit late in getting this notification since the 3 buildings are nearly complete. It is absolutely appalling that these units were ever approved. Firstly, they ripped down every tree on the huge site and only then did they consult with a bushfire expert as depicted by the 'cleared image' on the BSF report. I am shocked that they were given such a low BAL rating given the close proximity to the surrounding bushland.

And why were there no objections due to the impact an additional 54 apartments and 7 multi townhomes would make on an already extremely congested area. I am guessing no one who gave the final approval drove through this location during peak times for school drop off and pick up. It is a nightmare. I feel for the people in the exiting units if they need to get to work during regular office hours. It is bizarre that the RFS would allow such a huge population of owners/renters and all the school staff and students from Kinder-Yr 12. What happens when a fire comes through this area and there is only one road out of this area. It blows my mind that this was never raised during the approval process. I guess property developers do have the Council and the NSW gov eating out of their hands!!

Oh, and what about parking. There is minimal parking and parents (and those who use the soccer field) need to double park for pick up/drop off because there is nowhere to park. You could suggest parking on Abingdon but this is a nightmare between cars parked on both sides of the streets and people driving like maniacs. The council could have required the unit blocks to be smaller and allow for parking for visitors/parents at the school. All the school parking is allocated for teachers (which should be a given) but don't start griping or fining us parents when you don't like the way we park if we need to manage young children. I am also waiting to see how many of the beautiful old gums will die after having their root systems hacked away by the builders. The block is not complete and gum trees are already showing signs of serious stress. Green Kuringai will soon be known as 'grey Kuringai' (the colour of concrete)

The Commenarra Parkway may not have extra rooms to be widen or expansion but council could consider opening up road access between Alinta Close to Begonia Road, Orchard Street and Butterfield Street to Hillmont Ave etc for diverting the traffics. With the increase in density, emergency vehicles suffers significant and unnecessary delays. People will be trapped during bush fire per above comment as there are no alternate routes to evacuate, nor fire engine is able to reach to the area. Speeding during non-peak hours is another concerns and there will be more and more people revving down and up the hills with the potential increases of cars on this road.

I agree with the comments so far. Adding more and more residential and business facilities just generates greater foot traffic and further road congestion. We already have considerable impacts from the recently added developments and traffic is horrendous during school hours.
Has anyone considered the impacts of this? Where is the data?
We are also on the boundary of an E4 high bushfire zone, what efforts have been made to mitigate the impacts should there have to be an evacuation from the area? Are you potentially placing current residents at risk?
There should also be some considerations given to widening of roads, extra lanes, and transport services in and out of the area. There has to be something given back to the existing community in return for further development.

This sounds ridiculous to construct something so large in a small community area. Traffic is already so busy there with the San hospital, KU preschool, Adventist high school and multi-storey medical offices. fox valley road is also so narrow ie one lane for each direction. People also drive through fox valley to go to abbotsleigh and Warrawee public schools so you have traffic clogging both directions.

Fox valley road during peak hour is already at a standstill. There is also a childcare centre and medium density apartments recently completed on fox valley. Increasing traffic load even more will also make such a small community area more dangerous for kids and pedestrians given many people like to exercise around the area.

It is also very difficult already to find parking to go to the San hospital and KU preschool on fox valley.

My car was crashed into and written off in front of the preschool on fox valley. It’s too busy as it is already!! You will also find vehicles will divert into surrounding residential streets increasing traffic to the whole area in attempts to bypass the heavy congestion on fox valley.

Had council considered the impacts to the local traffic?

We need to be careful about trying to protect everything that is old. There are some wonderful homes in our area that are rightfully heritage listed for reasons other than just age or a general style. One of the nice things about the North Shore is the number of gorgeous old homes, stylish newer homes and a lot of those in between.

We should respect that old homes are not everyone’s cup of tea and we shouldn’t impose those preferences in our whole area.

I walk past this house twice a day and it looks nice but hardly worth preserving for future generations. There doesn’t seem to be anything distinctive about it’s architectural style or facade. So unless it has some other historical significance then I don’t see why it should be heritage listed just because it’s a Californian bungalow. There are Californian bungalows all over Sydney and NSW. You don’t have to go far to find them if you really want to see examples of that specific architectural style.

The Georgian and Victorian style homes are much rarer and speak to our history more than the Californian bungalow.

The houses on that side of the street up and down the road are all a pretty wide range of styles.

One major issue with these old homes is the energy efficiency from a heating and cooling perspective. The new building and insulation standards are so much better for reducing energy use.

I am grateful that the owners of this property choose a DA rather than electing to undertake complying development that would not give the opportunity to supply feedback.
Like others I do not understand why this property built in 1919 does not have a heritage preservation order on it in line with the other buildings of a similar age in this part of Kissing point rd. The house has similar street appeal to those already heritage listed. It has also been very well maintained and extended and renovated over the years keeping sympathetic to its era as shown by the realestate photos from 2020 when the current owners purchased the property. Other houses within the block on the same side of the street that contain heritage restrictions are 62, 54, and 28 and with 15, 51 and 53 across the road also listed. Arguably the existing property at 48 has more street appeal than others which are heritage listed. “The Gables” at 69 Kissing point rd as already been lost with night time demolition undertaken by the owners which caused much frustration within the community.

Should another beautiful old home that is being replaced by a modern equivalent single dwelling with limited appeal other than size and internal layout be approved without trying to maintain the existing trees and heritage?

If a heritage restriction cannot be considered then as to the proposed DA of 48 Kissing Point Rd Turramurra, the existing house comprises of 4 bedrooms, the master with WIR, ensuite and retreat/study and the smallest bedroom being 3.7m by 3.8m, 2 full bathrooms and a 3rd bathroom combine laundry, 2 living areas opening onto pool and 1 car garage. In comparison the proposed dwelling has 5 bedrooms, the master with WIR and ensuite the smallest bedroom being 3.8m by 3.36m (smaller than previously offered) however 3 bedrooms in addition to the master do all propose ensuites. Both builds contain a study. Other than the increase of3 bathrooms the new build would also contain the addition of a Pooja room, gym, plant room, mud room, and 2 additional living areas with none of the original charm of the existing building.

Could this not be achieved by a sympathetic extension maintaining the heritage and charm of the existing dwelling?

At a minimum can further consideration be given to the tree preservation and recommendations?

Recommendation: 10.3 Five trees including tree *11, *12, *13, 30 and 35 have been recommended for removal to accommodate the proposed development. All trees recommended for removal have been awarded a lower category Z Retention Value. Tree 11 is a noxious weed and has therefore been recommended for removal. Trees 12 and 13 are not significantly impacted, however have been recommended for removal for relandscaping purposes.

The DA proposes the removal of 5 trees and warns of the encroachment on 5 additional trees that could be at risk based on the build. The removal of 1 tree is due to the impact of the removal of the existing pool and proposed new pool location. This tree is the Acer palmatum commonly known as Japanese maple that has a TPZ of 36.5 m2. A comparison of the pools highlights a change in orientation of the pool with the additional of a spa and increase in the length of the pool at the cost of the removal of the Japanese maple. “The proposed pool will encroach into the TPZ by 32% (11.7m2 ) and into the SRZ. This is considered a major TPZ encroachment and has the potential to impact the stability and/or condition of the tree.” with the proposal for the tree to be removed.

At a minimum could the length of the pool be reduced from the proposed 10m to reduce the encroachment on the tree to preserve the tree canopy a diversity of the foliage supplied by this tree?

The remaining 4 trees to proposed to be removed are impacted by the driveway changes and the expansion of the existing footprint to add the gym and plant room.
Could consideration to maintain trees 12 and 13 bordering the property as the removal is cosmetic only for relandscaping purposes:
• 12 Castanospermum austral (commonly known as Moreton Bay chestnut or black bean – Native is a young tree 5m in height), ”There is no proposed TPZ encroachment. However, the tree has been indicated for removal on the proposed plans for relandscaping purposes. *Remove”, and
• 13 Jacaranda mimosifolia (blue jacaranda Semi-mature 10m in height) “The proposed driveway will encroach into the TPZ by 9% (2.2m2) but not into the SRZ. This is considered a minor and acceptable TPZ encroachment and will not significantly impact the condition of the tree. However, the tree has been indicated for removal on the proposed plans for relandscaping purposes. *Remove”

As to tree 30 this tree is category A2 and is a large native tree that supports native wildlife in the area and should not be removed as if 9.2 is already being followed to ensure the protection of 5 signification trees under recommendation 10.4 there is not reason other than cosmetic to remove the tree.
• 30 Callistemon saligna (commonly known as Willow Bottlebrush tree is mature 12m in height) “The proposed driveway will encroach into the TPZ by 58% (30.2m2 ) and into the SRZ. This is considered a major TPZ encroachment and has the potential to impact the stability and/or condition of the tree. Remove” The recommendations incorrectly state that this tree is a category Z yet it has been classified as a category A2 elsewhere in the report with a TPZ of 52.2M2.

Could consideration to the driveway shape and materials to support the retention of the tree not be enforced? If this was undertaken this would also assist with the risk posed to trees 15, 16, 17 and 18 below.

Recommendation: 10.4 Five trees require tree sensitive construction methods to be retained in a viable condition, including tree 15, 16, 17, 18 and 31. To retain the trees in a viable condition, the proposed construction within the TPZ must be completed in accordance with section 9.2 of this report. If it is not feasible to implement the recommendations as outlined in section 9.2, the trees may not be viable for retention

As stated in the tree report, 5 trees are at risk by the build. Two of which are the 2nd and 3rd largest trees on the block with the 2 others in the top 10 largest trees and the final tree just outside the top 10 trees in height (out of a total of 35 trees).
• Tree 31 category A1 is a Sweetgum 20m in height. This is the 5th largest tree on the block.
• Tree 15 category A2 is a Turpentine 17m in height. This is the 8th tallest tree on the block.
• Tree 16 category A2 is a Blackbutt Eucalyptus 24m in height. This is the 3rd largest tree on the block.
• Tree 17 category Z4 is a Blackbutt Eucalyptus 25m in height. This is the 2nd largest tree on the block.
• Tree 18 category A2 is a White Leaved Stringy Bark Eucalyptus globoidea 16m in height. This is the 12th largest tree on the block.

9.2 Construction Design/Specification Requirements for Tree 15, 16, 17, 18 and 31: To ensure the trees are not adversely impacted by the construction, it must be demonstrated the following design and construction specifications can be implemented within the TPZ of the trees. If the construction cannot be completed in accordance with these specifications, the trees may not be viable for retention.
Tree Sensitive Hard Surfacing/Driveway Construction – Tree 15, 16, 17, 18 and 31: To retain the trees in a viable condition, the driveway between the road and the garage must be constructed in a tree sensitive method. The hard surfacing should be constructed above existing grades in the TPZ of the tree. The diagram below (Image A) gives an example of a no-excavation method for constructing hard surfacing close to trees. The location of retaining pegs should be flexible, avoiding damage to significant roots. For areas where there is an existing driveway being replaced, no excavation should be carried out. If excavations are essential for any new areas of the driveway, they must not exceed 100mm below the existing grades. The excavations are to be supervised by a project Arborist with a minimum AQF level 5 qualification. • All excavations for the hard surfacing should be carried out manually to avoid impacting retained tree roots.• All excavations for the hard surfacing should be carried out manually to avoid impacting retained tree roots.

It is also noted that the environmental Statement of Environmental Effects states the removal of 9 small site trees which is inconsistent with the Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report that only has the proposed removal of 5 trees the majority of which are not deemed small with heights over 9m.

“New landscaping is proposed across the site. The scheme includes the retention of most site trees, removal of 9 small site trees, and new planted gardens with new small-medium sized trees and shrubs.”

As a local of 25 years during every walk and drive along this stretch of Kissing point I have admired this home and gardens for its charm and street appeal. It will be very disappointing to see the character of the area lost for future generations. My children now grown adults living in the area are also concerned with the loss of our history and environmental gifts that cannot be replaced in our lifetimes.

I find this very distressing that another of our heritage homes will be demolished for another ugly house.
This house is significant architectural Californian Bungalow 1919.
There are so few of these houses on Kissingpoint Road. Why is this not being preserved.
It is a beautiful house, we have already lost 'The Gables" 69 Kissingpoint Road Turramurra had an interm heritiage order and then was demolished

The demolition of the garage will cause significant damage to our home office. Please refer to detailed letter to Mr Michael Azzi, Head of Compliance at Kur-ring-gai Council. Mr Omar Zaher of ZED Certifiers Pty Ltd has to legally provide me reports and he has not so do.

How many units & townhomes are council going to allow in this already congested area. It is an area in a high flame zone due to the surrounding bushland and there is only one exit in and out via Eton rd. This would create a whole host of problems if there is ever a bushfire in the area. In light of the fact that Lindfield Learning Village is also in this location, I do no know how the area will cope with the increase in traffic. As a local Roseville resident and a parent with a child at Lindfield Learning Village, I have experienced the traffic nightmare first hand. Sadly, the area is quickly losing all the beautiful green scape due to developers and private certifiers clearing all the old growth that makes Roseville so desirable. We need to put a stop to the over-development in Roseville, Lindfield and the surrounding area.

One subtitle - "How To Destroy A Pleasant Suburb"

If this and other Developements go ahead, then I foresee two or more sets of traffic
lights will be installed which will create traffic blocks at the Highway and 'rat-runs' in
surrounding streets. Of course, more and more trees will have to be removed.

Who on earth is approving these applications. This is the second application in Lindfield applying for a large development. The last application was putting in 20 townhomes and this one is applying to build 63 townhomes!!

Is someone on council getting financial kick backs for approving these huge developments? Traffic is already a nightmare in this area due to the proximity to Lindfield Public School. Who is going to ensure smooth traffic flow? What is happening to our wonderful Northshore location. There is a reason we pay high property prices to live in this lush green location and I can guarantee it is not to be crammed into a suburb where I can’t move due to traffic issues and watching all our native trees get pulled down by developers and private certifies (who seem to do ehst they want). I may as well live in the eastern suburbs or a concrete jungle like Chatswood.

I know many people around this area who have to navigate this road on a daily, and with the exception of one (who I believe has other reasons for being “for” this build… ) all other concerns are warranted!!! This street is far to narrow! as are many that have now succumbed to Councils bad development plans! Parking, traffic movement and residents movements through these streets should ALL be taken into thoughtful consideration when approving any planning! It is a disgrace Sydney wide what councils are giving the go ahead to! Being pressured by a greedy government inundating Sydney with shoddy, poorly constructed developments! My street in Turramurra is similar to this street..during the day riddled with buffoon ignorant driving, atrocious Parker’s who could care less about residents who have to manoeuvre around their vehicles and new buildings that are horrendous inside and out! I have first hand knowledge of the dire health and safety standards that occur on these work sites when building these new builds … You should all be concerned and ashamed of what is currently going on in the building industry! It’s a disgrace!

I wholeheartedly endorse this development as it is a fantastic use of the block. While being mindful of minimizing damage to the current tree canopy, it is important to recognize that it may not be feasible to retain all of the trees. The land is privately owned, and the owner should not be held responsible for safeguarding our natural environment. Criticisms about Dorset Drive being too narrow are a clear example of NIMBYism. It is likely that those individuals understand that providing access from Rosedale won't be feasible for all six properties and may result in further damage to the BGHF. Their demands appear to be aimed at rendering the development impossible. It is unfortunate that these residents are unable to welcome just four more new neighbors to their street.

It sounds a bit strange that according to the Aborist report the house was purchased in Sep 2021 and this big tree started dying right after the settlement and a year later it is now almost dead. Emm~

We are residents of Dorset Dr & will be directly impacted by this proposed development.

At this early stage we have 2 immediate concerns:
1. Development-related traffic, deliveries & parking of vehicles & equipment-
All of these should be done via Rosedale Rd as it is wider & is a major road in the immediate area & is more accessible.
Dorset Dr is a narrow quiet road which houses many families with small children & many on-street parked residential cars. There are no footpaths on the street so residents walk on the road. As a result, driving access is restricted & requires extra care & caution. Council has acknowledged the difficulties in accessing our street in its letter to residents dated 15/12/2020, when it instructed the rubbish trucks to reverse down the street & collect the bins from the west side only.
Vehicles traveling down Dorset Dr turn around by using a resident’s driveway because there is no other option other than reversing. As a result of this we have seen damaged mailboxes, damaged driveways & damage to other parked cars on the street.
In addition, the entry/exit to Dorset Dr at Shinfield Ave has become more risky & congested. This is because Shinfield Ave has become a commuter shortcut/rat-run ever since Porters Lane was changed to one-way traffic only.
The Rosedale Rd access to the proposed development has none of the above-mentioned problems & makes the most common sense.

2. Stormwater Runoff Control-
Runoff problems from Lot X DP442469 have been increasing over the years. In particular, during the wet season of 2021/22, there was significant flooding caused by runoff from the property which impacted several homes along Dorset Dr.
The proper control of stormwater runoff should be a priority objective of the new development.

I am a resident of the northern end of Dorset Dr. We already have access difficulties in the street, to the extent that the garbage trucks need to back down the street and then pick up rubbish bins from only one side of the street. My concern with this development is twofold. During construction I do not believe the street is wide enough to cope safely with additional vehicle activity, including trucks and heavy machinery. It would pose an unacceptable risk to existing residents, both the elderly and the children. I believe access for the work should be made available from Rosedale Rd, otherwise it should not proceed. Secondly, the additional housing that is planned in this development will exacerbate the access difficulties in the street given the expected additional traffic from new residents. It is vital that access is maintained from Rosedale Rd once the
is complete, to alleviate these difficulties. Please ensure that the safety and amenities of existing residents are not compromised, and ideally are enhanced via improved access, as a result of this development.

I have serious concerns with the proposed development, primarily related to the planned use of Dorset Drive as an access point. It is already a narrow street and nearly impossible to fit a standard sized car through when cars are parked in the street. With the proposed development, it would be expected that there would be more cars parked in the street, making it virtually inaccessible for local residents. The difficulty with access was frighteningly demonstrated last year when a group of kids were seriously injured at the end of the street. Emergency vehicles had great difficulty navigating the parked cars and had to reverse down the street, potentially causing a second emergency situation. A preferred access point would be Rosedale Rd which is a wider road with easier access and more capacity to accomodate extra and larger vehicles.