All recent comments on applications from North Sydney Council, NSW

Says reason is “tree is no longer present”.
What happened too it? Why was it taken out? Was it lawful? Was it storm damage?
That should be checked before the condition/bond is removed .
Otherwise another convenient tree loss & we are losing them from the tree canopy & streetscape throughout Willoughby & North Sydney - let alone the massive loss of over 500 mature trees being destroyed now on Cammeray Park & Golf Course for Western Harbour Tunnel by the NSW Government

If this development includes additional accommodation, that is another bedroom, then I support it, if there is no major detrimental impact on neighbours. Additional accommodation is the best, and really the only acceptable way, to increase the population of the municipality in accordance to the state government's demands on this commUNITY. Otherwise the only way to achieve this mandated accommodation increase is the proliferation of inappropriate high raise developments. Just look at the apartment canyons on the Pacific Highway from the bridge to St Leonards. Military Road will need to be see similar development to achieve the government's mandate, unless it can be achieved by additional accommodation developments such as DA 235/22

With regard to this DA our major objection is what we assume will be increased traffic movement in Grasmere Lane. The lane currently provides EMERGENCY and general access to all adjacent buildings in Sutherland Street and many in Grasmere Road. This proposed development will add significantly to HEAVY traffic on the lane for a prolonged period during a lengthy construction period. The noise generated by truck movement will be unbearable for dozens of residents whose balconies/windows/gardens face this lane. Grasmere Lane is not suitable.

How on earth can this be approved when the ratios are well over the regulations? And not by a small amount - 20%

I do not support this application at this time as there is insufficient DETAIL to assess the egress/ingress IMPACTs at the business transport/pedestrian interface. This site is adjacent to the only surface level entry and exit point to North Sydney Station which is on Sydney Train's "most popular" rail line (T1 - T1 North Shore Northern & Western Line).
In addition, this site is adjacent to the largest bus interchange after that at Wynyard.

With 10's of thousands using the railway station and the adjacent bus interchange, ANY development that will see potential disruption to the free flow of pedestrians using these services should not be permitted. Otherwise Blue Street will need to be closed to handle bus traffic only. The impact on residents of McMahons Point and North Sydney would be hash.

Adding additional living/sleeping space to existing properties in the Municipality is the best way to protect our community from government mandated population increase by 2036. If the municipality fails to approve developments to house an extra 15,000 people than we are under threat of having government grants to North Sydney cut back.

Here's the choices:
1. Continue to destroy the amenity and community, which is the core of our daily lives, by approving obviously incongruent high rise apartment block developments (look at the Pacific Hwy between North Sydney and Crows Nest, look at the destruction of Crows Nest, with moves to do the same at Neutral Bay, etc.). I don't want a 'Mascot Towers' debacle in this municipality.
or
2. Encourage sympathic development that fit into the existing community of the municipality, such as this one. Add a bedroom to an existing 'home' or, where appropriate, maybe a room over an existing garage.

I support this application if it fits the amenity of the area without destroying.

If this "first floor addition" adds space for more residents at this property then I support it. The alternative to this gradual increase in North Sydney residents is far better than the ugly, inappropriate multistorey apartment develops - such as what is happening in the former "village" of Crows Nest at St Leonards, in Lane Cove, and coming to the Neutral Bay "village".

Given the state government has MANDATED North Sydney Council has to make room for 15,000 more residents, encouragement of small developments, such as this, should be encouraged if they do not adversely impact the neighbours or the nature of the surrounding areas.

Love a "studio" above a garage.

Increasing space in the municipality with small projects like this one will assist in North Sydney achieving the state government mandate to have addition accommodation for 15,000 people in the coming years (failure to do so with undoubtedly see an LNP government reduce grants to North Sydney).

The alternative to these small, individual increases in additional accommodation are the development of inappropriate, ugly 15 - 20+ apartment buildings similar to those polluting the Pacific Hwy and other areas in the municipality. St Leonards has surrendered to this trend, Lane Cove is being forced to do the same; Crows Nest is going. The rest of North Sydney must make a stand by encouraging small individual developments such as the one at 21 West Street, IF they are sympathic to the surrounding homes and do not adversely impact the amenity of area and local neighbours

I do not believe there is any need or reason to add a pool to any approvals in medium density areas particularly due to environmental concerns, and impact on neighbours properties in very close proximity.

Got to support sympathic alterations to existing properties which add additional rooms in order to ensure the LNP mandate of 15,000 additional resident for North Sydney. Otherwise, we will continue to see our homes and the local environment destroyed by in appropriate high rise developments. Such as the Pacific Hwy between North Sydney and Crows Nest, Crows Nest metro station (and surrounds) development, St Leonards (now destroyed north of the railway station, etc.

So a development such as this were addition bedrooms are planned in an existing residents have my support if they are done sympatically to the surrounding environment and do not adversely impact neighbours.

ANY application which will see an increase in a property's accomodation should/must be supported as a step to offset the LNP State Government's demand that North Sydney increase its population by 15,000 residents in the coming period.

The alternative is the inevitable spread of the gutting of the Crows Nest/St Leonards 'village' environment with inappropriate multi-story apartment blocks.

Going from 2 to 3 bedrooms in a existing home or the construction of a granny flat on an existing property (such as those built over rear access garages in eastern Crows Nest) will spread the required population mandate of the state govt across the municipality rather than see the construction of inappropriate 20 and 30 storey apartment blocks with the resultant loss of amenity, increase in overshadowing and wind tunnels.

The only acceptation would be such smaller increase in population doesn't come with an unacceptable adverse effect, such as loss of amenity, to surrounding properties.

I would like to object to this proposal in Thrupp St as it will contribute to the volume of current works which has already been most challenging. Thrupp street is narrow. Further works will add noise, inconvenience and impact safety as visibility is constantly blocked by heavy machinery. To give context, the contractor cut off a limb of a tree on the corner of Thrupp and Harriette streets so their semi-trailer could reverse to turn and leave.

The volume of developments in this surrounding area has become unreasonable impacting the quality of life and potentially the safety of citizens.

Clearly inappropriate for the area. Read and take notice of the other objections as they are never more relevant to the situation in this area. A strong message needs to be sent to insensitive development application which CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY are in NO WAY suitable for the area in which it is proposed.

A developer who would propose such a 'rape of the neighbourhood' give all developers a bad name and destroys the possibility of ANY reasonable proposal to be rejected. That's not what is wanted in this LGA. Council, with the support of the state government, should apply rejection fees for any proposal rejected by the council. This is a current regulation in most cities over 100,000 in France. Come on try and drag yourselves into the 19th century (when such penalties were first applied)

I am writing to object to the Development Application (DA) for a mixed-use development at No. 1 Eden Street, North Sydney. I am a resident of 42 West Street, North Sydney.

The subject site is currently occupied by a 2-storey commercial building, with a front setback providing off-streetcar parking for two (2) vehicles.

The proposed development includes demolition of the existing building and construction of a 5 storey Mixed-Use development including a basement bicycle store/ garbage room, ground floor commercial tenancies, three levels of boarding house accommodation and a 5th storey common room with communal laundry, outdoor deck areas and a landscaped terrace. The DA does not comply with the building height control of 13 metres specified by the North Sydney Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013 as the section below shows.

I wish to object to the Development Application on the following grounds:

1. Building Height: The 5th storey communal area is above the height limit. The height limit is there for important reasons:

· to promote the retention of existing views,

· to maintain solar access to existing dwellings, public reserves and streets, and to promote solar access for future development,

· to maintain privacy for residents of existing dwellings and to promote privacy for residents of new buildings

2. Loss of privacy: Having a roof top common area above our building would impact privacy and create noise concerns. The DA Acoustic Assessment concludes that the use of the roof should be managed, preventing people from accessing it after 10.30 at night and before 7am. It also recommends the introduction of 1.8 metre Perspex or glazed screens around the open deck areas, suggesting that there will be significant acoustic issues for neighbours.

3. Overshadowing

The SEE includes a shadow analysis demonstrating increased shadow length and additional overshadowing to several adjacent apartments including living rooms, and private open space as well as overshadowing to yard spaces.

4. Out of character with the area: The height, bulk and scale of the proposed building is excessive for this narrow site and surrounding context, which includes heritage listed buildings and residential buildings of up to four storeys. Dalziel lodge is an example of a neighbouring property that offers short stay budget accommodation that is in character with the local area density, landscaping and setback.

· Poor design outcome: potentially creating a negative precedent for future building activity in the precinct. There are a lot of issues with trying to fit 12 accommodation units on such a narrow lot, including:

· Many windows are less than 3 meters from the property boundary, requiring fire engineered solutions including external drenchers.

· The proposed building blocks the existing windows from the neighbour’s south elevation (3 Eden Street) reducing daylight and preventing use of windows for ventilation.

· Plans show issues with equitable access for people of varying mobility – including turning circles for wheelchairs, accessible toilets and wheelchair access to laundry.

5. Construction Management Plan including Demolition, Excavation

In the absence of a construction management plan, we have concerns with demolition and excavation on a narrow adjacent site with limited access, particularly after recent events in Alexander Street Crow’s Nest.

One of the last remaining vistas will be lost if this proposed development proceeds. The structure will adversely affect the character of the street and will be inconsistent with. the objectives of the LEP within the Cremorne Point Heritage Conservation Area.

This extension to an already substantial property will add a three storey, dual occupancy structure as well as garaging for two vehicles to the detriment of other residents and visitors to the area. Street parking will also be reduced, essential turning a public amenity into one for the sole use of 47 Kareela Road.

Council should consider the impact on existing residents as well as visitors to the area.

The proposed development adversely affects not only views from residential dwellings across Kareela Road, but also the character and style of the neighbourhood, which is a Heritage Conservation Area.

The proposed heights of the new structures, peaking at 12.9m above ground level, is higher than neighbouring buildings and not in keeping with the objectives in the LEP. The proposed structure would be more aligned to the stylistic objectives of a built-up area such as St Leonards, but would cause a detrimental effect for the Cremorne Point area.

Additionally, the proposed development includes a number of deviations from development standards. While there is sometimes a good reason for deviation from a particular standard, no justification or explanation has been provided here and it is not evident why this would be the case for this particular proposal.

I urge the Council to reject the development application in its current form and call upon the applicants to reconsider the substance of their proposal, bringing it more in line with the LEP and the character of the area.

The height and the pitched roof form of the proposed development adversely affects views (especially views to Mosman Bay, Mosman Bay Wharf, Reid Park and Mosman Rowing Club premises) across the site from nearby private residential land in contravention of well‐known planning principles established by the Land and Environment Court.
The proposed development involves:
1. alterations and an addition which increases the height of the existing dwelling to 8.8 m about ground level
2. new garage at street level, comprised of three storeys reaching to a height of 12.9 m above ground level.
3. off‐street accommodation for two vehicles,
4. a roof, pitched at 43 degrees, which is inconsistent with the presentation of other garaging structures in the streetscape
5. a garage roof, pitched at 27 degrees, which is inconsistent with the presentation of other garaging structures in the streetscape
6. a 4.9 m wide street crossover providing vehicular access to the garage
7. a setback of just 1.2 meters to the property boundary with Kareela Street
8. new studio and storage to the garage under croft
9. a footprint of 197.4 m2, which is 35.7% of the lot area
10. reduction in the existing soft landscaped area to just 174.4m2
11. major branch removal of an existing tree
12. construction encroaching with the drip line of an existing street tree
The proposed development is not consistent with the objectives of the LEP within the Cremorne Point Heritage Conservation Area. In particular: the proposed development
1. has a bulk, scale and appearance which is incompatible with the heritage character of existing dwellings and structures (including neighbouring garage structures) along Kareela Road.
2. diminishes the heritage character of the dwellings to the north and south by reducing their outlook across the site to filtered ‘slot" views
The number of departures from development standards and the extent of those departures is significant. The proposed development contravenes a number of development standards expressed in the North Sydney local environment plan 2013.
The proposed development is not consistent with the objectives expressed in the LEP in respect of those particular standards. Nor is it consistent with the objectives for the development within the residential R2zone. the council therefore cannot be satisfied that the proposed development will be in the public interest. There is public benefit in maintain the development standard and the director general DPIE has not given his concurrence to the development application.

I have heard that 15 Allister St is being considered as a heritage listed property. Is this correct?

This DA does not fit with the surrounding streetscape/neighbourhood and the aesthetic is not in line with that of Benelong Road at all. The proposed development is far too large for the block and will be a dominating and overbearing presence. Benelong Road is renowned for its beautiful homes of the post-war era and is a key part to the architectural history of Sydney. Many developments have been done in this area, however they all maintain the integrity of the original homesteads. This DA is almost identical to one that was submitted prior to Christmas and was rejected.

I noticed that this is an alteration to the Land and Environment Court consent. My understanding was the decision is final.
Does this mean that a developer can change a decision?
Does this also mean that objectors can get a decision changed?

Parking for residents in 17 Tunks St is very limited as it has a 2 hour parking limit for non-residents and people use the street to park and catch the train into the city from Waverton Station.If council is to allow on site parking for more residents and take out parking spots with vehicle crossovers council should do a few things
1) Reduce the time non residents are allowed to park and extend the hours parking for non residents is monitored ie past 5pm.
2) Allow Residents to park in their property AND across their driveway to free up spaces
for those that don’t have on site parking
3) Issue more visitor parking tickets per resident of streets with time limit parking limits like Tunks St.
At night there is often NO available places to park in Tunks St due to it being used by non residents to catch the train into the city.
ALL these issues need to be addressed so safe affordable parking is prioritised for resident rate payers!

Any additions to existing properties within the North Sydney Council area which adds more "beds" is a worthwhile offset to the multistory monstrosities that have destroyed the village nature of Crows Nest and the rest of North Sydney (Neutral Bay is next). Such developments offset the state government's (sponsored by building industry moguls) mandated increase in housing availability for a further15,000 residents.

A country with a population density of 3.3 people per square km. doesn't need any more Crows Nest style 'Packer Peckers' to house its people. Next thing they'll be wanting to fill Lavender Bay for a new Star Casino and an expanded Looney Park (Ooops! Luna Park).

Is this a parking station for Lavender Bay?

Get real and use your feet. Within couple of hundred metres of this property there are:
- Ferry wharf (2 if you want to walk a kilometre)
- Railway station (2 if you want to walk a kilometre),
- 27 bus services, and
- around 15 Go-get cares.

Use them.

This application is unacceptable and an over development of the site. Concerns relate in particular to a 4 car garage stacker. We have as yet not received official notification of the plans submitted to council.

Would like to view this application on the grounds of concern re the aesthetic compliance to our neighbourhood.