I am concerned, and do reject the implications of this development.
It is unclear/ambiguous, and such a development is not fitting with the area, and changes the precedent for future planning and development.
As property owners in Carrington Parade, Curl Curl for over 35 yrears, we have been subjected to increased waste water run off, as the area around us has been developed, this is both surface water and underground water running down the rock face. When the Council curbed and gutted Ellen Street storm water pipes were laid that had insufficient capacity to deal with the amount of water run off that we have today and nothing has been done to rectify this situation.
Therefore until this situation is rectified, which we have been requesting be done for many years, we feel we must be guaranteed that the new application will have provision to adequately with all the water water problems that must occur because of it.
The satellite view of the subject property shown with the application details needs to be updated to show the resubdivided expanded boundaries of 2 Wyadra Avenue - as now exists, and not as it was - following previous Council approval to include part of the 14 Ellen St backyard (which is my understanding of the consolidation and resubdivision outcome of DA2020/0147)
It is requested that Council ensures no increased underground water runoff occurs as a result of this development - i.e. that Council requires the property owners to take positive steps to prevent further underground seepage occurring.
Properties below the escarpment and cliff face - including ours at the foot of the escarpment in Carrington Parade, Curl Curl - have over the past 40 years experienced progressively increasing underground inundations as more and more properties have been built, expanded, and otherwise redeveloped.
We and other property owners in Carrington Parade have raised this issue with Council officers on several occasions previously, but the inundations have continued to increase..
I am writing in regard to the propose development of 120 Prince Alfred Pde Newport. The land included in this proposal has mature Fig trees on and near the boundary. Will these trees be preserved in the plan. One of these trees is certainly on Council land. There used to be mangroves in front of this land which were removed when a swimming pool was constructed. The pool was filled in fairly recently. Is this considered a part of the land to be developed? Will any Mangroves that have managed to survive be protected?
One part of this land on the boundary with 118 Prince Alfred Pde Newport was originally a part of the land which now has 3 buildings on it. It is a very small block as it was divided to make 118 just large enough to build on. There were several commitments made that some trees on the waterfront would be kept. They were not.
138 Headland Rd, North Curl Curl.
Please can we have this tree removed it is to big for the position it is situated. The roots are under our next door neighbors house. A lot of the roots are above the ground as it is sitting on sandstone. We are scared at some time in a storm this huge tree might blow over and cause major damage.
Hello,
Can you please advise on timings for commencement? Has council provided development consent?
Cheers,
Ben
I live close by. The application seems completely reasonable. There should be no problem with music and the caravan park. The Ospreys have built a beautiful nest in the park behind rat park...so no problem.
Norfolk Island pines are not native to this area. It is lovely to have outside eating in the restaurant area. We need progress and some upgrades in this area we are not talking about skyscrapers here!
I have lived close by "One" for 10 years.The problems with this application are the alienation of Crown Reserve Land for private use, the potential damage to the Norfolk Pine trees in that area, and the potential noise levels if this application goes ahead. 180 people for a cocktail party is too many for this quiet area..I would want no more than 60 people in total..there simply isn't the room for a "pub-style" grouping, and I worry about broken bottles/glasses/drunks outdoors, where families with young children pass by regularly, especially in summer.
I have no objection to outdoor music, particularly if it employs local artists, is not too loud, and those musicians remain on the 10x4 metre outside paved dining area which has been there many years. The hours suggested are fine...most of the local clientele would be families with youngish children (in school hols) and grey nomads from the Lakeside Caravan Park over the road. The Norfolk Pines may not be native, but they are attractive and house many birds (lorrikeets roost in them), and they have formed habitat for threatened Ospreys and Sea Eagles in recent years. Damage to them from "One" customers would be a great shame and inexcusable.
Please keep the Norfolk Pines they are part of the Northern Beaches history and
especially North Narrbeen. Some people only think for what is good for an individual not the community. Keep the Trees and Private enterprise not to build on public land.
I have no problem with the new proposals at "One Restaurant". I only hope you get rid of those terrible Norfolk Island pines down there, they are a non native introduced species, they block the sun, drop pine needles non stop all day covering the ground and killing the grass which then makes the area un usable. No one wants to sit in dirt with pine needles dropping on there head.
Good afternoon
We are the owners of unit 4, 87 Birkley road, Manly. We didn’t get any notification regarding this application that affects us as our unit is directly above unit 2. We have been waiting for notification so that we could put a submission in. Our bedrooms are above the new deck area. Should we not have received some sort of notification as adjoining property owners?
Dear Sir /Madam ,
I am responding yet again to the issue of the development application at 19 Marshall Street, Manly, and the ongoing issues with loss of privacy and noise that affect our property at 61 Wood St Manly ( which is 1.2 metres away from the dwelling over the side fence, not 1.5 m as quoted in the 2019 assessment). We are concerned about the potential misuse of the property for short term accommodation use, parking issues and light pollution, and most importantly the non compliance with setback standards. Please consult our file on this issue which stretches back many years, involving different owners and includes numerous development infringements, including trespass on our property. There are numerous photos of unapproved building works that have somehow managed to slip through the net, only to be approved retrospectively
The assessment in 2019 DA 2019/0356 stated categorically
"Short-term holiday accommodation:
Concerns have been raised that the tenants occupying the proposed secondary dwelling will be unregulated, as it will be used for short-term holiday accommodation purpose's.
Comment:The proposal seeks consent for changing the use of the existing outbuilding to a secondary dwelling. Nothing within this consent will permit the structure to be used for tourist and visitor accommodation purpose's. Imposed conditions, will ensure that any variation to the approved land use will require the submission to Council of a new development application."
Also noted in the last assessment
" It is acknowledged, that the outbuilding structure has been altered since the original approval, that is why the applicant has lodged a building certificate (BC2019/0068) in conjunction with this application, to seek a retrospective approval for alterations and additions to the detached outbuilding."
The rulings made in the 2019 assessment must be adhered to in the current development application.
Hello,
I am concerned about the development proposed for 27/29 North Avalon Rd. Avalon Beach. I live just around the corner on Tasman Road and already feel our small neighborhood is at breaking point with local traffic and cars parked on the street. The addition of 10 new apartments will only worsen this situation as it will not only be residents of these buildings on the roads and parking on the streets but any visitors and guests as well. I have two young children on their bikes and footpaths in the area daily and we already find North Avalon Road a busy thoroughfare that is often unsafe for them. Please strongly consider the impact TEN new apartments will have on our local area. We cannot cope with more traffic.
Kind regards,
Erin Hopkins
I want to see the elevations as I live next door.
During this world wide environmental crisis I think that the development of such a proposal so close to such a natural treasure (Shelley Beach and surrounds) is severely detrimental. Not only will there be a huge loss of biodiversity but the excess material waste that comes from removing such a massive house is an unfair contribution to landfill purely because the rich are not satisfied with their current dwelling. There will inevitably be a huge amount of water used in the building of this newly proposed house at a time where the whole country ought to be using as little water as possible. The demolition of the entire property will release awful sediments that will ultimately end up in the water that is a stone trow away from the house and, whilst different to the ash from the current ongoing fires that we have seen suffocate marine creatures, will have a profound effect on the local underwater environment at Shelley Beach. The newly proposed absolute diabolical renovation of this property will effect neighbouring views and reduce the value of surrounding houses effected. Because of the increased surface area of the roofing it will generate an exponential increase in run off from the house that could negatively effect the publicly owned nature reserve to the south of the house. Potentially causing small landslides or flooding in periods of heavy rain fall. Not dissimilar to the way in which the development of St Patricks estate flooded the pathway leading to Shelly Beach in March 2019, this development has the potential to do the same on a larger scale. The addition of a pool in an area that couldn't get any closer to the beach is a preposterous suggestion that suggests a lack of consideration. This is a case of the elite not considering the environmental costs of selfishness. I do so hope that you guys at the council have a deep and wide understanding of the environmental costs of this proposal and choose to properly investigate all of the detrimental aspects in accordance with the publics concern for the natural integrity of our beautiful Manly.
A perfect example of 'entitled' community being completely clueless about development and good architecture. The proposal looks great and is proposed top put 74 room critical worker housing on a busy road under a 14 storey tower.
We all want our teachers, police officers, nursers and firefighters to live in local suburbs, yet the moment we see a proposal next to our houses we scream over-development and greedy developers. No-one wants to live next to school or hospital, yet it is critical, subsidised housing is no different.
The fact that this proposal was unanimously approved by the planning panel, despite all the 'outrage' by the local minority speaks volumes of how outspoken really care only about themselves and the value of their properties, without any consideration of a real community benefit.
I wish to submit an objection to Application DA 2019/0191. I live in the adjacent property at 6/4 West St, Balgowlah. My concerns for the proposed foot print for the dwelling is it will impact my privacy due to the close proximity of the structure to the southern boundary of my property. I have further concerns about the orientation of their entertaining area and the associated noise. I am aware that the wash of their lights from this proposed dwelling will also impact me. Even though the placement of the drive way may be obscured regarding headlights being directed into my property the associated noise from vehicles will be significant.
What does it mean that ‘details are to be inserted ‘. Has this DA been approved? Thank you
Hello,
This DA appears to partly be a retro-fitting process to get approval for the current development. I oppose to such processes, DAs are to be obtained prior works of that impact on the local environment and community be undertaken. Thee process should be equitable for all.
On the impact to the community, the local management of parking is a key concern. Residents pay in excess of $500/year to park at Church Point, the car park is now always full every weekend and most weekdays nearly full also. The next major concern is the noise. For those residents facing Church Point, the noise is a key issue, it will impact wellbeing critically and decrease property value. While a cafe may be supported an extensive venue for bar and weddings is not. This DA 's timeline should consider the outcome of the liquor and gaming bar licence application for 350 patrons.
$400/$450 rent per week is not affordable accommodation which is why many of the existing boarding houses are unoccupied! Affordable accommodation and/or homes for the over 55s and disabled should be a priority for Forestville area. I would urge council to think how the area will be transformed should many more of these boarding houses be allowed to be built.
These types of dwellings are 'get rich quick schemes' for developers who in 10 years time will transform them into expensive apartments and the tenants will be made homeless.
Its time for some long term affordable housing to be considered by Council.
After reviewing the plans for this development I agree with the statements already logged on this page. I feel the height of the development is unnecessary and intrusive to surrounding homes which will have blocked sunlight as a result. Parking is already limited in this area and there doesn't seem to be enough parking provision for this new development. Overall I hope this development will be reconsidered with these points in mind.
Like the boarding house already granted approval in Darley Street, this development is not in character with the area. Forestville and the adjacent suburb of Killarney Heights is primarily a mix of young families and elderly retirees who have been in the area for decades. This is not an area known for short-term accommodation and I see no community benefit in encouraging this style of development. As others have mentioned, traffic close to Forestville shops has increased exponentially. Adding more high-density living to the area will only make this worse. Parking is also already a problem. I would urge you to decline the transformation of a family home into a boarding house-style residence.
Further to the comments made in the other submissions with which we agree with, we also would like to object to the new development for the following reasons:
1. Our house is at 21A Upper Greycliffe Street which is located immediately adjacent to the proposed Development at 68A Queenscliff Road. We have reviewed the Plans and object to our losing sunlight between our back door and our Pergola. We have limited sunlight in any case and the new development with reduce it further. There is also a loss of sunlight in our front yard from new shadowing.
2. We are extremely concerned that the deep and extensive excavation of the basement will lead to excessive vibration and noise that may cause cracks and structural damage to our property during the construction phase.
3. We object to the unsightly Lift Well protrusion on the Roof. It is both ugly and exceeds height restrictions.
4. We object to the increased level of traffic that the new development will cause; particularly in relation to the two businesses in addition to the residential apartments. There is already very limited parking in the area and given both the lower part of Upper Greycliffe Street and eastern side of Queenscliff Road are "One Way" there will be a higher level of traffic doing U and 3-point turns outside our property. This will also cause further traffic danger to the many pedestrians that walk past and cross the road between Queenscliff and Freshwater beaches.
There is no need for a boarding house as many are not fully occupied. The suggested location is also in a high traffic area suffering from congestion, especially the area around the Coles and community hall. The traffic lights prioritize traffic on Warringah road and it can take up to two cycles to turn onto warringah road. There is a shortage of over 55’s accommodation with an ageing population wanting to downsize and stay in the local area.