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

It’s a little late to ask for feedback when the beautiful old house on this block has already been demolished. Every tree and shrub has been bulldozed. Our suburb is quickly losing all character.

Re: Modification to DA0339/16 proposing to remove two trees (Trees 61 and 62

I am writing to voice my objection to the proposed removal of trees 61 and 62 at 133A Livingstone avenue Pymble.

Removal of the subject trees was already refused at previous DA submission, and should not now be permitted via an amendment, for reasons purely of the convenience of the construction.

The removal of these two established trees for a driveway is unnecessary when there is ample room to accommodate them. Replacement “with shrubs” as per the proposal is insufficient. The established tree canopy in the Ku Ring Gai area must be protected, and directly impacts the local bird and native mammal populations. A large number of mature trees have already been removed from this site.

I would further like to raise concerns about how the removal of these trees affects the shade and privacy of adjoining properties, and the risk for ground subsidence following the removal of their large root systems. No information has been provided about the impact of their removal at all.

I ask that the proposed amendment to DA0339/16 be refused by council.

Kind regards,
Dr Lauren Nguyen
133 Livingstone avenue Pymble NSW 2073

There are two healthy mature araucaria trees related to This site which are significant visually and part of early subdivisions marking the boundary before Albert Drive and Harwood Ave were developed. There is no need to remove these trees ( one is on the Horwood Ave nature strip but clear of driveway access) . There is also a boab tree of some age in the rear corner of the site that should be retained and protected as a rarity and for botanical interest. Can any site development please retain these trees - there positions should make this easily possible. These trees have a link with the heritage of the area - one of the oldest areas developed in Ku-ring-Gai. Thanks

Can we please salvage some of the mature garden plants by offering to locals. I would love some rather than losing more beautiful mature plants.

I agree with the concerns raised by David Grover regarding tree removal and a lack of information. I imagine this application, and all the others in the area require arborist reports. These reports include type of trees, heslth of trees, ecological importance of the trees. Yet, this application has no information.

With regard to this application for the construction of units and others in the area, including the multi storey construction opposite on pacific highway (next to the 7-11 service station) and the construction of townhomes behind the 7-11 service station on Boundary st & Archer. They all provide parking, which is ideal and a necessity None of the applications discuss the huge impact to the already impossible traffic congestion at Pacific highway/Boundary st & Archer streets. It is a nightmare during peak hour and I do not believe these issues have been made a priority.

Again, no details of what trees.
I ask that Council identify as many trees as possible that can be retained in this development.

Although these new houses will be ‘hidden’ from the street, there will be significant loss of tree canopy. The area is home to endangered species and I would hope a solid environmental survey would take place. Plans should aim to keep mature trees, replacing them is not enough in this area that abuts the canopy zone attached to the ephemeral creek

Are these the screening trees at corner of Yarrabung & College Cres? I do NOT want these trees removed as they are the only saving grace to soften my view of this huge complex opposite my home.

I would like to know if 'landscaping' included removing any established trees in the extended yard?

All building work must be in compliance with NSW and local government requirements specifically the start time for work and the use of power tools only within the timeframe and days allowed.

I can't find any information re what is proposed to do on this site but I sincerely hope it will not involve another anonymous construct replacing one of the last vestiges of aesthetic character in the area (the old school building opposite is a gem too). Pacific Highway is already a deadening, faceless continuum of characterless constructions.

I would like to see this application granted and the proposed fit out proceed.

and probably every bit of vegetation will be removed as well. Scorched earth on some well established trees.

Very sad! Demolition of such a well preserved Californian bungalow--and double gabled to boot--to build what will probably be a "project" monstrosity is upsetting and, really, irreverent. Money in the hands of fools and private certifier!

Vehicles should not be allowed to park within 30 metres of the Carnarvon and Archbold Rd intersection.

I would love to see the addition of a community garden and the inclusion of recycling bins to encourage our sustainability in St Ives.

Note amendment to DA 0163/18 to transfer the A/C plant from basement to the roof. This appears to be a common tactic of many multiple development DA’s. The original DA has basement or A/C units within the lots. The Developer maximises the height then applies for an amendment to place the A/C units on the roof with no adjustment to height exceeding height limits and providing additional building floor space. Also aesthetically and potentially intrusive to surrounding residents. Council should not reward the applicant by allowing these amendments.

Note amendment to DA 0163/18 to transfer the A/C plant from basement to the roof. This appears to be a common tactic of many multiple development DA’s. The original DA has basement or A/C units within the lots. The Developer maximises the height then applies for an amendment to place the A/C units on the roof with no adjustment to height exceeding height limits and providing additional building floor space. Also aesthetically and potentially intrusive to surrounding residents. Council should not reward the applicant by allowing these amendments.