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

This a very large superior classic Edwardian Mansion with very excellent interiors that has had many $100,000s spent on recent improvements. It is an admired typical upper north shore property of great quality (recent $6,000,000 sale)
What is coming? All should watch with care.

Why does a tree need to be removed? Ku ring gai is losing its tree canopy rapidly. Why can't the new house be built to accommodate the existing tree?

The heavy vehicles that is constantly coming on Junction Road for this development has caused a lot of damages (potholes) to this section of Junction road. We did noticed that it had been fixed previously, but didn't last long. Within 1-2 months, the potholes appeared again. So appreciate if this issue can be constantly monitored and fixed as they appear because it's currently damaging a lot of vehicles' tyres and rims.

Eastern Rd currently being considered for road improvement works to alleviate traffic and congestion. Constructing more housing and denser living will cancel any road improvements and will impact on the neighbourhood greatly.

Hi Just wondering, what kind of landscaping happening along side fence between 120 and 122 junction road?

Regards,

The modification to DA0105/17 (L&E Court Approval 369427) essentially involves the reduction from the originally approved 19 Units to 18 Units.
It is noted that the data in the BASIX Certificate 741890M_07 is both incorrect and incomplete. This is evidenced by, but not limited by, the following:
# The BASIX certificate specifies 19 Units and not the revised 18 Units.
# There is no information provided for a 4 bed room unit as nominated in the DA revision.
# A pool is included is included on pp19,21 & 22 of the Certificate but is not included in the DA plans.
It is submitted that these modifications and the incapacity of the data supplied renders the L&E Court Approval invalid.

We do not object to the modifications for the driveway gate and front fence.

I'm as along term resident am against the park being used every year by merchants trying to sell one expensive wine and second rate food.
The grass and ground foliage takes about 6 months to recover from the mauling & trampling by so many people who really don;t appreciate the spectacular unique nature of the park and the history of what was created by peoples of the area 100+ years ago, some areas never do fully recover from previous food fairs.
If a food and wine expo is to be held then i suggest the Ku-ring-gai Council make available the council car park behind the Wahroonga shopping precinct therefore also benefiting the shops in Redleaf, Station street & Coonanbarra rds jointly.

I concur with Li Ozinga. We have been living on Shinfield Avenue for the last 2 years and have observed that one side of Shinfield Avenue is always used for parking cars, in turn making a 2 way flow of traffic difficult.
I would also like to add here, due to increased flow of traffic at the crossing of Shinfield Avenue and Rosedale Road, we have observed increasing number of vehicular accidents in the past 2 years. This needs to be curbed somehow. Perhaps a traffic light/ a roundabout.

Thanks

Correction... Clifton Gardens Hotel was built in 1871 not 1821 sorry. Still quite believable that the bricks were the result of convict labour.

Now a third comment to add to my previous comments. Having now read the Heritage Impact Statement more fully, it would appear to me that your findings under 4.5.1 Criterion A are incorrect, and that with the information I have provided, the existing dwelling is indeed "important in the course, or pattern, of New South Wales’ cultural or natural history"... or at least the building materials are!!

The document also says the dwelling was erected in the early 1960s, when it was actually the late 1960s (1968). It also indicates the original architect / designer has not been identified... I can also do that for you. I don't remember his first name but he was a Mr Bayfield. I have the original plans somewhere, as does my brother, so I could find out more if you wished.

One last thing... the Lander family... the ones who purchased the property from my parents, made two significant changes to the property during their tenure. They extended the large formal living room substantially to the north AND they filled in our below ground pool which sat between the dwelling and the tennis court. Perhaps the shell of it is still there!!!

Further to my other comment above... I have some amazing new information that may be of interest.

It has been confirmed to me that the sandstock bricks from the Clifton Gardens Hotel used in the construction of this dwelling were ***convict made***. This makes sense, as the Hotel was built in 1821.

The Mosman Historical Society is very keen on finding out more about the progress of this development and its approval, as they would be very keen to have some of the bricks potentially to erect a memorial of sorts on the Hotel's site, or similar. They are going to try and get in touch with the current owners to discuss.

It has also come to my attention that some of the detail in the Heritage Impact Statement on the Ku-ring-gai Council website is incorrect/incomplete, as regards the timeline / history relating to the property.

It is fascinating to find out that a Geoffrey and Phyllis Lander secured the property in 1960. The report states that "the Lander family retained an interest in the property until at least 1988" and the title has not been investigated further. What ACTUALLY happened was that my parents, Ray and Judith Morgan, bought the property in 1966 / 1967. I don't know the meaning of Chalice Pty Ltd, the supposed owner in 1966... was that a developer... or was that a company name my parents used to purchase the land? I truly do not know. Anyway, my parents built the structure that is on the land today, using the Clifton Gardens Hotel convict-made bricks as discussed. We moved in early September 1968. My parents then sold the property in 1986 (as per the newspaper clipping in the Heritage Impact Statement) to... wait for it... Russell and Margot LANDER!!! I can only imagine they were particularly keen to buy the property because it would seem that Russell's parents (or grandparents??) owned it previously! Amazing! These younger Landers owned the property for 33 years, right up until it was sold late last year, 2019, to the current owners who are seeking to demolish it.

I am the daughter of the original owner / builder of this property, built in 1968. I don't have any real emotional attachment to the structure so I wouldn't stand in the way of progress for sentimental reasons.

HOWEVER, I think it is important that you AND the new owners understand the signficance of the bricks used in its construction. They are rare, historic "sandstock" bricks ALL of which came from the Clifton Gardens Hotel in Mosman, which was demolished in 1967.

I want to owners to know this and perhaps the bricks can be recycled once more for another construction. A piece of Sydney history.

I’m gob smacked that you have agreed to knock down the house at 149 Livingstone Ave. Seriously, I’m ashamed. The council all voted against it as did hundreds of residents but still the developer won. I must now consider getting out of this area before my house gets swallowed by progress. I’m disgusted and extremely disappointed. We are knocking down a part of our history and more importantly setting a dangerous precedent for the easy eradication of our heritage and history. Thank you. Todd

When are they starting to demolish Coles?

Dear Sir / Madam

RE Multi-Unit Housing Development 161 Rosedale Road DA0220/20

I would like to offer the following observations to the Council planning officer responsible for undertaking the assessment of the subject development application:
- Overall I have no objections to the proposal, which appears to be consistent with other recently approved development along Rosedale Road.
- I note the traffic report has undertaken a site specific assessment of the traffic safety and efficiency implications. While there are no traffic counts undertaken for the purpose of that study and therefore no quantitative assessment (eg aaSIDRA analysis or similar), my anecdotal evidence (I am a nearby resident in Edgewood Place that frequently uses the intersection of Rosedale / Shinfield) would agree with the conclusions.
- Parking appears to be provided in accordance with Council's DCP. However, my observation over the last several years has been the increased reliance on on-street parking around the apartments. Anecdotally this can be attributed to the fact that residents garages are lockable and are used for household storage rather than parking their cars.
- Increased parking on Shinfield Ave in particular is not ideal. The road is quite narrow and introduces conflict points with two way traffic when there are vehicles parked. This conflict can be manageable / acceptable with low traffic flows. However, with the ever increasing number of units and traffic using Shinfield over the last several years, some additional traffic management matters should be considered by Council's Traffic Committee. My suggestion is that morning and afternoon peak period parking restrictions should be in place on one side of Shinfield Ave for its entire length.

Thank you for the opportunity of providing advice.

I’m against this application. It will destroy the streetscape and water drainage.

I have concerns over where the entrance and exit access point will be positioned. With the new housing development being built further down on ‘The Broadway’, coupled with the traffic coming and going at Fox Valley shops (of which there are multiple ‘near-misses’ each day as visitors exit out through Kiogle Street without looking at traffic turning right into Kiogle Street) and SAN workers who park around residential streets, visitors to SAN parkway who will not use their carpark due to high fees, congestion will be significantly increased creating risks for residents and pedestrians and the new daycare clients.

Fox Valley Road (Shops side), is not able to accommodate the increased traffic. The whole road layout needs to be revised to give safe and quick entrance/exit on Fox Valley Road/ the shops/ and the residential street traffic lights combined.

I’ve no objection to new businesses coming to the area but it needs to be done with correct infrastructure to support needs not just now, but in the future.

I support the new day care centre but you must get this basic stuff right or risk total congestion in what is essentially a high bushfire risk zone as well.

The proposed 127 place child care centre will have such a negative impact on road congestion at "the Comenarra Pkwy" and "fox valley Rd" intersection. During the rush hour, it would cause huge delays especially on getting into or out of Kiogle street and other roads south of intersection (with the only exit being this intersection) because of people trying to pick up or drop off their kids.

This site seems to have been mismanaged since works began 6 months ago.
There have been serious safety concerns which risked the lives of the public, especially children.
For example, there was no perimeter fence around the work site, which harboured a slippery 10m hole, for multiple months .
The road (Junction) has been covered in clay and rubble causing serious safety issues for drivers. Traffic has been held up. Workers do not wear safety vests and are difficult to spot.
This site is a shemozzle and is seemlingly being run by cowboys who are not obeying council rules.

The work is already on since last six months, what is this all abouut????

Re Application No : DA 0381/19. PRoperty 70 Warrangi st Turramurra

I wish to record my objection to this proposed development.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People With a Disability) 2004 (the SEPP)

Clause 26 – Location and access to facilities; and
Clause 38 – Accessibility:

DA0381/19 Amendment to foot_path_plans additional information - Detailed Plan Alignment Detail Plan Page 2 of 22 and also Page 14 of 22.

The new pathway is being proposed along the existing grass verge/nature strip on the along the northern stretch of Warrangi Street and the corner of Warrangi Street and Bobbin Head Road. There is currently no footpath along this part of Warrangi Street. The street is characterised by attractive grass verges/nature strips which are occasionally interspersed by modest driveways allowing vehicular access to the single-family dwelling houses, which also characterise the area.

Whilst there may be a bus stop located on Boomerang Street which provides access to these services in Turramurra centre, the fact that a completely new pathway needs to be constructed to allow sufficient accessibility to the bus stop should be the first sign that a development for seniors housing is being proposed in an inappropriate location.

This proposed footpath is not unlike installing a pedestrian crossing on the road and leading children to cross at these points. No car would have clear visibility of a pedestrian crossing to be able to stop in time. You would just not expect anyone to cross at those points. Similarly, no pedestrian would be able to safely see a car coming at either of these crossing points to allow safe passage.

The foot path leads senior and people with living with a disability as well as anyone uses this footpath on Warrangi Street to cross the road twice, then creates and exaggerated curvy footpath design to meet the gradient rules to get to the Bus stop on Boomerang Street. Furthermore a beautiful tree of good vigour removed from the corner of Warrangi Street and Bobbin Head Road in the process.

The proposed development of five individual senior living homes is entirely out of context with the both the neighbourhood and the wider area, and also fails to respond to the streetscape character or complement the surrounding dwellings. The neighbourhood and the wider area are characterised by large, detached, single-family dwelling homes on large plots. The development would be unique in the local area and detrimental to local streetscape character, through both the incongruous design and location of the proposed homes, and the introduction of the footpath as referred to above.

This DA should be rejected on its failure to provide "quality of access" (quality of route to its nearest suitable destination) Page 13 of the SEPP 2004