All recent comments on applications from North Sydney Council, NSW

Originally the applicant advised Council about the intention to erect height poles.
However a Scaffold Mock up was erected for the purpose of illustrating the proposed effect of a development at this location.
It was in place in the last week of August 2024 and viewed by the NSLPP.
The DA was rejected.
An appeal is pending before The Land and Environment Court of NSW however the matter is yet to appear in the list since a vacated hearing. Apparently the LEC Commissioner does not usually attend the site until immediately before or on the date of the Court hearing. The Land and Environment Court is usually on vacation for 6 weeks from 23 December 2024
The new Court term doesn't commence until Monday 3 February 2025.
The 5th November directions hearing was pushed back 2.5 months. It is likely that the 7 and 8 April hearing dates will also be pushed back further and this scaffolding tower will be in situ for more than 7.5 months
The Scaffold mockup is unsightly and potentially dangerous.

The application is on the agenda for the North Sydney Local Planning Panel (NSLPP) 4/9/24.
After three years of requests the applicant is providing a scaffolding and height stick mock up to illustrate non compliant bulk,scale and height. The mock up is under construction now and illustrates the adverse affect on the Kareela Rd Street Vista and general amenity of Cremorne Point.
Now is your opportunity to understand what this DA represents by viewing the proposed construction site and is in time for you to register your interest in participating with NSLPP Panel meeting.
Have your say.

Amended Plans have been lodged and the following comments are based on the amendments.
View Loss Analysis and Visual Impact – Amenity
There is no consideration for the affect the proposed Development will have on the Street View loss referred to as Kareela Road Vista to Mosman Bay, the Ferry Wharf and the Rowers
The Street Loss View effect will be substantial and I estimate this as a 40% reduction at a right angle increasing the further you progress south up Kareela Rd to a 100% loss
In addition on the western side of Kareela Rd opposite properties will lose view due to the height of the structure. The vista view is a community view that must be considered and at all costs protected, it’s is one of the few remaining vistas in Kareela Rd and adds substantial amenity to Kareela Road and the Cremorne Point Reserve

Potential Tree Damage
A heritage significant Port Jackson fig will require significant trimming in the range of 25% and is already in a non vigorous state.
The tree is being placed at risk to provide 2 car parks and this is insufficient reason to put this treasured botanical specimen at risk.

Concerns over Construction Management
The applicant is relying on the previously submitted Geotechnical report. The report refers to 3 cored borehole positions referenced as BH1-3.
There appears no cored borehole positions to assess subsurface conditions immediately below the main tower and its suspended driveway.
This structure is in the range 12-15m tall depending on the ground level existing position selected.
Council undertook some road stabilisation some years ago however it was under the timber guard rail and appeared to be shotcrete with no anchors.
Road stabilisation appears to have been overlooked.

Excessive Height:
The existing building is of heritage significance and has a maximum height at the roof ridge of approximately 8.8 m above ground level, already exceeding the development standard by 0.3 m.
The ridge height is at RL 23.93 less the advised existing building height of 8.8m places the ground level existing confirmed at RL 15.13.
The new garage/ hardstand/ lift/ undercroft/ store/ study/ entrance door and window is a 3 storey building with a ridge height at RL 30.05m and has a proposed maximum height of 14.92 m above ground level existing using the ground level existing at the dwelling and proposed new entrance.
This exceeds the development standard by 6.42 m and represents 175.5% over the maximum height. It overshadows the existing dwelling ridge height of RL 23.93 by 6.12m.
The setback from the Kareela Rd Boundary is 3.2m and insufficient for the proposed height.
The bulk/scale and excessive height of the proposed extension would be visible from the Cremorne Point Walkway, Mosman Bay and the across water views from dwellings across the bay.

General Observations:
This development does not conform to or reflect natural landforms, it does not step down or follow the natural gradient of sloping land.
It does not retain or assist in the sharing of existing views.
It does not retain solar access to a public walkway, dwellings, public reserves and streets. They will be impeded by the driveway overpass and the bulk and scale of the structure and its unsympathetic design.
It does not maintain privacy for residents of existing dwellings.
The proposed development is not compatible with surrounding properties and has an inappropriate scale and density and fails to promote the character of the area.
There has always been direct pedestrian access to the property from the street and a Council pathway exists with a set of public stairs to it
The NS Council owns the Land and the Pathway in front of the proposed development and the overbridge will remove 2 street car parks and provide 2 private parking areas not for public use

Non Compliance with the Standard:
- the non-complying height of the 3 storey structure is a result of the steep topography at the west end of the property that adjoins Kareela Road. The garage presents to Kareela Road as the top floor of a 3 storey tower.
- the Mosman Bay views are located below street level and any structure above street level reduces the water view and has an adverse impact to the streetscape of Kareela Road.
- the proposed development fails all of the objectives of the prescribed height standard
- the non-complying 3 storey structure as proposed will have a major detrimental effect on the established amenity of the area

Environmental planning grounds not maintained:
- the proposed development is not consistent with the relevant aims and objectives of the LEP and the objectives for the R2 Low Density Residential zone
- the proposal represents a unreasonable development of the property within the context, as follows:
- there will be detrimental effect on the established amenity of the neighbouring properties, including views, street vista and solar access or privacy all due to the non-compliance with the standard..
- the proposed 3 storey building is not complementary to the existing building and there are no characteristic buildings in the vicinity.
- the proposed new vehicular access and garage are inconsistent in siting, form and height with that provided to the majority of properties that have a primary frontage to Cremorne Reserve
- the proposed new 3 storey building is uncharacteristic to the streetscape and is not compatible with heritage significance of the Conservation Area due to the non-complying height proposed garage building.
- compliance with the standard is requested to maintain the amenity of the Cremorne Point area and protect the interests of other directly affected residents and visitors

Inconsistency with the objectives of the Zone:
- the proposed development has no benefit to the housing needs of the community within the established low density residential environment.
- the proposed development does compromise the amenity of the surrounding area or the natural or cultural heritage of the area.
- the roof form, scale and architectural character of the existing building and the proposed new work are uncharacteristic of the Conservation Area.
- the existing structure will be affected by the proposed development and it will contribute negatively to the character of the existing dwelling and the Cremorne Point Reserve area.
- there will be detrimental effect on local amenity, including public and private views

This is not enough parking spaces for the number of residents. Many will park in nearby streets which happen to be in Willoughby City Council area. The increasing number of apartments in this part of North Sydney means that this is already happening, making parking ever more difficult for residents of local streets. The new apartments are inevitable, but they need adequate off-street parking.

I support this Development Application. This is a positive development for the wider community as it leads to increased health outcomes and it is located close to an existing train station which allows easy access to transport.

I support this application if it adds accommodation to an already existing structure. Given we (North Sydney Council residents) are mandated by the state government to deliver an additional 5900 residents to be accomodated in the municaplity, I'd rather see this target met without the destruction of our amenity that high rise development inevitably will bring.

Also, given we have the smallest open space per resident of any municipality in Sydney, spreading additional people across the municipality in developments like this, as opposed to high rise apartments, will have less impact on our already inadequate open space amenity.

I support this application if it adds accommodation to an already existing structure. Given we (North Sydney Council residents) are mandated by the state government to deliver an additional 5900 residents to be accomodated in the municaplity, I'd rather see this target met without the destruction of our amenity that high rise development inevitably will bring.

Also, given we have the smallest open space per resident of any municipality in Sydney, spreading additional people across the municipality in developments like this, as opposed to high rise apartments, will have less impact on our already inadequate open space amenity..

I support this application if it adds accommodation to an already existing structure. Given we (North Sydney Council residents) are required by the state government mandated an additional further 5900 residents to be accomodated in the municaplity, I'd rather see this target met without the destruction of our amenity that high rise development naturally will bring. Also, given we have the smallest open space per resident of any municipality in Sydney, spreading additional people across the municipality in developments like this, as opposed to high rise apartments, will have less impact on our already inadequate open space amenity..

I support this application as it adds accommodation to an already existing structure. Given we (North Sydney Council) are required by the state government to have a further 5000 people accomodated in the municaplity, I'd rather see this target met without the destruction of our amenity that high rise development naturally will bring. Also, given we have the smallest open space per resident of any municipality in Sydney, spreading additional people across the municipality in developments like this, as opposed to high rise apartments, will have less impact on our already inadequate open space amenity..

I support most applications of this nature where additional accommodation is an inclusion within existing housing in North Sydney.

Spreading the availability of additional rooms for new residents (to comply with State Govt targets for NS) is a significantly better option that the inappropriate and amendity destorying development of high rise buildings.

We believe North Sydney Council should be actively supporting developments of existing housing stock that includes additional sleeping accommodation on existing housing stock.

Our state government mandated NSC must deliver accommodation for an extra 15,000 residents over the coming years. Unless we want further destruction of the municipality via the construction of ill advised, overheight, jerrybuilt, ugly high rise apartment blocks (like the NEW Crows Nest), then we must encourage development of existing house, like this application + granny flats over rear lane access garages and the like. Spreading the increase in the mandated population increase across the whole of the municipality decreases the cost of infrastructure required to support these addtions to our community.

One of North Sydney's ongoing and continually worrying concerns relates to the density of its housing in such a small municipality area (in comparison to other LGA's in NSW) This has led to the municipality having the least open space available to residents in Sydney - THE LEAST.
The state government is heavily supporting the increase in the number of high rise buildings to accommodate, at least, another 15,500 people. Rather than house these new residents in inappropriate high rise buildings it is only logical to spead the numbers over the whole LGA. To this end, the council should be POSITIVELY encourage and support the type of housing approvals, like 'granny flats', that we have seen poping up in Crows Nest (to the east of the shopping precinct). By increasing the population in accordance with state government mandate and spreading that increase across the whole LGA the impact on the LGA will be share equally by all residents. Thus having the least impact on the current open space issues.
Council should consider ACTIVELY encouraging existing properties, particularly those serviced by rear lane access, to consider using the space of existing rear lane access garages as a foundation for development of granny flats. Along the lines of the Mews development thoughout London, which began such development when horse stables there were no longer required after WW1 as motorised transport began to grow.

Hi,

I'd like to please request a site visit as I have concerns on the plans due to wall height being built on the 99 Ernest Side of the property (I'm the owner of 99 Ernest St)
I'm concerned about the light & sun that will be blocked to due to the studio on the garage and also concerned if there are any windows facing my property that will remove the privacy i currently have.
I don't really follow the plans submitted well and would greatly appreciate assitance on how this proposal will effect my sunlight and privacy.

Thank you
Anthea
[phone number removed by admin]

I oppose the removal of the tree on the grounds that trees are being removed without regard for the benefits they provide . Trees provide shade and habitat for wildlife . The streetscape is being eroded by the removal of trees . Our area has already lost too many trees . Please reject this application on environmental grounds .

Unable to make effective comment on this until some plans, concepts and shadow diagrams along with impact reports to traffic, ammenities, schools, hospitals etc are made available - when will these be available through the North Sydney Planning site?

There are already far too many tall buildings in this area and an oversupply of apartments. This will lead to overcrowding and a reduction in quality of life for residents. It has already been shown that low rise apartments are far superior to towers from an environmental point of view.

Any development application which increases the no. of bedrooms on existing sites assists in achieving the state government mandate to increase NSC area by 15,000 without having to create more wind tunnels/overshadowing/loss of amendity will get my support. My only condition is it should have too great the amendity of neighbours in the locale.

Dear North, Sydney Council,

I am the owner of the neighbouring property of 119 Chandos Street, Crows Nest. (My property is 117a Chandos Street).

Having reviewed the development application,
DA 257/23 and as it stands, it appears the proposed changes to 119 will detrimentally impact the light that our property receives to one of our rear court yards. In so doing, not only will the new development impact the quality of our home living (indoor/outdoor), and this home life, it will also impact the value of what is our main asset while it seeks to raise the value of the applicant’s.

I cannot endorse this application in the grounds of loss of light and overshadowing.

Please note this comment is my official response to this DA application and as it stands,

I DO NOT APPROVE.

Thank you for your consideration.

Should you require further information, I would be happy to write you a report.

Kind regards
With gratitude
Rebecca Platt

The photo purporting to be 184 Kurraba Road, Kurraba Point NSW 2089 is not correct, it is in fact a photo of 184B Kurraba Road and should be corrected.

The removal of 3 is trees is concerning particularly the impact their removal will have on the wildlife that inhabit them . Trees provide shade and shelter which is becoming more and more important as the climate heats up . I oppose the removal of these trees on the grounds that their removal will impact the landscape and wildlife .

As direct neighbours to the development application at 110 Benelong Rd, Cremorne we have a significant number of issues and objections to raise with the proposed knock down of the existing dwelling and the build of a new large dwelling based on our pre review of the proposed DA. We have engaged an architect and town planner to formally review the DA and will be provide this review and areas of objections to North Sydney Council during the DA process.
P&J Mitchell 112 Benelong Rd, Cremorne

I support this application on the following 3 grounds:
1. The home office will only be used/accessed by members of the household at this address (ie., no non-resident coming and going or excessive pickup and drop off services [parcels, etc],
2. It will mean the resident(s) will not have to TRAVEL somewhere else for work (helping the environment),
3. Future residents of this property may not have a need for onsite office and could reconvert to lockable garage or TURN IT INTO A BEDROOM, or a separate Granny flat. Thereby increasing the number of residents in the municipality to comply with state government mandated population increases - adding addition residents using EXISTING stock will reduce the need to build the high rise gettos being constructed at Crows Nest, St Leonards and environ.

If this development increases this property's level of accommodation then I support it.

That is a significantly better option for the increase demanded of this LGA by the previous state government for an additional 15,000 residents to be housed here. The alternative is the further destruction of the amenity of this LGA via grossly over height, gerry-built high rise accommodation.

I am not sure why we need this type of structure. If people need to know Council details they can contact the Council direct for a full explanation.
Third party advertising will make the area a mess. Having seen them in other area, they are unkempt, messy, out of date and ugly.
Why do we need this, lets put this money somewhere else.

I object to this development as it has the potential to increase population density in Crows Nest. As an owner occupier in St Leonards, I feel that any further increase in population will reduce the liveability of the suburb. I feel that it is a constant battle between residents and developers and that the council is failing to listen to and act on the voices of the voters.