All recent comments on applications from Northern Beaches Council, NSW

I believe this site needs to be redeveloped, however this design is quite excessive where it exceeds the maximum height limit of 8.5m and does not provide sufficient parking for the number of new properties. Therefore, this will be detrimental to the local area views, parking and quiet enjoyment.

Please no more boarding houses.
Traffic congestion in this area is becoming an issue. And there are a number of boarding houses in the area or planned and some are not fully occupied now
There is a shortage of over 55’s accomodation with an ageing population wanting to downsize and stay in the locality

An absolute disaster if yet another boarding house is approved in this area. The one at 12 Darley is bad enough. Please no more of this madness?

The development of a boarding house in this area is inappropriate.The majority of dwellings are owner occupied.
This development would add to the traffic congestion at peak times which at the moment extends down Starkey st
There appears to be an over abundance of boarding houses in the Forest area and these are not being fully occupied
Council would be better to provide more accommodation for the ageing population in the area with the solution being more over 55 housing.

We request that there be no lights whose brightness or direction invade our privacy.
View from our East outlook, & night stargazing, are of primary importance to us.

We wish to lodge an objection with regard to the proposed development Application DA2109/0730
It breaches Council Height Restrictions > currently there are a large number of unit blocks that are 3 storeys tall we do not understand that an application has been lodged for a five storey development given that the Queenscliif Rd Envelope is 3 storeys how is this application even considered? Clearly if allowed it will breach set back provisions on the easter & Western Boundaries and open space requirements as well. Approval would create an unwelcome precedent.
Our greatest concern is parking, Queenscliff rd is already at maximum capacity and council would be very aware of the parking issues because of YOUR previous studies and submissions from residents. There are a number of unit blocks in this street that have garages that are too small to take todays vehicles adding to the overcrowding.There are also a number of properties with 4 vehicles in the immediate vicinity of this proposal so an average of 28 car spots for 15 units and 3 visitor spots is insufficient and will only add to the problem. Please do not allow this to happen. Council also knows from a previous study that providing parking stickers to residents would not work as there are not enough car spaces, this just confirms the lack of available car spaces currently in Queenscliff Rd, this development will only exacerbate the problem.
As our representatives we are looking to Council to provide some leadership and vision with regard to this application.

This development in Gladys Avenue is yet another example of developers exploiting loopholes in the legislation regarding SEPP and so called affordable housing.These are not low rent public housing units. They are advertised as executive apartments.The road is too narrow and already crowded with hospital traffic. It is meant to be a low density street and if the zoning changes to units on the Forrest Way side there will be even more congestion. If this development is meant to be for aged residents, how come each unit has four bedrooms? If this is allowed, then every house in the street could become a "boarding house".

Will there ever be a time when Northern Beaches Council put the environment of this beautiful area before the profits of developers.

Your approval of this development is an outrage.

Will there ever be a time when Northern Beaches Council put the environment of this beautiful area before the profits of developers.

Your approval of this development is an outrage.

Dear Sir
In the interests of conservation and protecting our natural environment please decline commission for the building of residential age care units to be built on Pittwater Golf course.
The Land & Environment Court of NSW is hearing “closing arguments” on Tuesday 12th February 2019 , in the matter for the proposed development of 85 Seniors Housing units in 7 buildings that will be multi storeys high on Bayview golf course in Pittwater’s largest gazetted Wildlife corridor .

As well as looking unsightly this development will have enormous ramifications for the wildlife that inhabit this corridor.
The impacts on biodiversity are very substantial and adverse. Proposal fails to comply with PLEP and PDCP requirements .The visual impact of the proposed buildings will be huge after removal of 249 mature trees that are 70+ years old. Destroying all these trees that are the homes for a variety of bird species as well as other animals will have enormous consequences for these animals.

For the environment and the wildlife that call this area home please preserve this wildlife corridor and do not approve this development. We must preserve these natural environments for future generations to enjoy.
Yours sincerely
Janice Haviland

Has the council given enough thought and planning into the access roads into this NEW Unit proposal.
There are 27 units being built, with a total of 67 car parking spots. Someone in their wisdom has decided ther will only be “ 6 “ cars from this unit block using the roads in peak hour on Monday to Friday, which I think is absurd, just a juggling of numbers to get this passed through council.
The development ajoining, namely 41 Warriewood has now completed its roads namly. Bubalo and a section of Lorrikeet, Why has number 31 not been made to have its own road through its development site and not a TEMPORARY road as is now appearing on the plan

To whomever it may concern,
I have real concerns about this application on two fronts: the electricity cables to the whole street and the visibility of the high wall.
The moving of electric cables puts the householders at real risk of being without warranties (even if those who move them say they’re covered, I’m sceptical if something came up it would not come back to bite the residents), not being done correctly, being inconvenienced at any stage to have no electricity with four children aged 3 months to 10 years at home while doing shift work. I think this is asking a lot of residents to support this request.
The high wall is also likely to impede vision for those entering the estate, and my children riding their bikes up and down as they currently do could be at risk of cars not having full visibility.
I’m also concerned that if council approve this, it may be of detriment to the current positive community feel of this street.
If the pool could be more at the rear of the house without the need of touching any electrical cables this application would be no problem whatsoever!

Re-Development Application DA2019/0023
Address: 10 Talgara Place Beacon Hill

I'am deeply concerned about the lack of detail for the above DA on your website. We had a pool installed recently and were told by you (Northern Beaches Council) that we had to disclose all development details as they needed to be included in the submission on your website. However, this doesn't seem to be a uniform request as there are no documents attached to this DA. We are an adjoining household and I would like to be at least shown the courtesy to be able to see what impact it may or may not have on our property.

There seems to be no comprehensive Council strategy to deal with increasing flows of people and traffic into Manly. Access roads are becoming thoroughfares which leads to reduced traffic safety, increased noise and tailpipe pollution, and lower quality of life for residents. It will negatively impact all residents of Manly, Fairlight and surrounding villages.

This is a gross over reach by an un caring developer. The impact on the suburb will be negative in every aspect, parking, noise, congestion and possibly crime. It is a very busy and dangerous bend where access is proposed also. Affordable housing is a great idea but this is obvious bluster to maximise profits for what is nothing more than an expensive backpackers lodge. I doubt very much the people behind this would want it in their street! As a tax paying, voting local it is rejected completely.

We are currently residing at 18 Lindley Ave. We would like to oppose the construction of the top, back, south east corner of the house (which is labelled as bedroom #2) which impedes not only on our NE aspect but also creates a large amount of shadow particularly in winter as our houses are built quite closely
We feel that this extra bedroom is unnecessary for the negative impact it will create with regards to our future living conditions.
This property is now up for sale and the original owners will be moving out.

The density levels are way too high and need to be reduced. Roads can not handle the traffic as it is and footpaths are still unfinished. Furthermore two storeys should be maximum height to fit in with other 2 storey houses in area.

The local community needs more time to assess this application which has suddenly changed from 6 or 8 townhouses to over 100 residences with minimum car allowances. Parking and traffic are already issues in Fairlight and adding up to possibly over 100 cars is ridiculous.Sydney rd is the main access to manly and is already heavily congested at peak hrs and weekends.Another point is a developer has sold to another developer??How is this allowed and why are the council only notifying immediate neighbours when the scale of this application affects the whole neighbourhood. This application needs more asssesment as the guise of "affordable housing"is another way of saying we intend to make huge profits!!

My wife & I object to this application for the following reasons
1) They are next door to an Early Learning facility @ 2 Violet Ave
2) They are within 100 mtrs of another Early Learning facility @ 12 Violet Ave
3) They are directly opposite a busy 6 Doctor Medical Centre @ 13 Darley St
4) They are diagonally opposite a large Pre School @ 9 Darley St
5) Infants & Primary School is next door to the Pre School in Darley St
6) Their proposed driveway will remove 1 or 2 of 4 x 2 hour parking spaces their side of Darley St between Violet Lane & Violet Ave
7) Parking is scarce .. 2 x 2 hour each @ 13 & 11 Darley St .. 5 x 2 hour outside Pre School but only 5 minutes for 3 hours school days!
8) There will, by necessity, be a very large numbers of bins for waste collection each week; on evidence of the traffic & pedestrian chaos frequently outside the apartments Cnr Warringah Rd & Darley St each week this will INCREASE the danger @ the intersection, Darley, Bushland & Violet!
9) I understand the Boarding House will have 22 rooms capable of housing 44 tenants
10) I believe 12 Parking Spaces including 2 x Disabled & 1 x Manager leaving 9 for cars & bikes of up to 44 tenants!
11) The occupancy may frequently change & include Back Packers & Shift Workers. We firmly believe there will be an underlying risk to the very young & the elderly attending the centres referred to in 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 above!
12) Due to illness, Wegener's Granulomatosis, my wife's hearing is very sensitive. We believe that probable shift workers & young backpackers will increase noise & traffic.
Sincerely,
Keith & Suzanne Stevens

I urge the council to consider the planning application for number 33 Carawa Avenue very carefully. Insufficient parking onsite will inevitably lead to more cars parked on the road at a very busy intersection. Many local children walk this route to school and I am worried this will impact their safety

Drawing no. LDA-02 01 confirms the existing Lilly Pilly hedge to the SW boundary of the site is to be retained. This is supported. Drawing no. LDA-01 01 shows a new treated pine retaining wall (~1-1.5m high) to be constructed adjacent to the hedge. What measures will be in place to ensure that site clearance, and construction of the wall and the temporary drainage can be carried out without affecting the hedge?

Conversion of this single dwelling to a dual dwelling lot does not appear to be in line with the Church Point LEP and DCP.

This development needs to be stopped. Belrose is a quite, family suburb, a development like this a boarding house is not within the character of this suburb, especially in Wyatt where there is a school and sporting oval. Wyatt is already a very busy street.
With the number of children and families in this suburb, it is a concern a large number of no family residents of unknown character would potentially populate this area. The first consideration ultimately needs to be for the families and especially the children growing up in this area, particularly with the local schools and sporting clubs in the Wyatt ave vicinity.
Please register this as a formal objection to the development of a boarding house in Wyatt ave or surrounding area.

Please ensure there is 'no increase' in height of the roof and maintain a
'flat roof' (which would theoretically keep neighboring water views the same). Or if a converted to a 'triangle/pitched roof' the apex of top of the roof is maintained at the current height (which would theoretically increase neighboring water views).

DA2018/0764 is 42 pages and too much information for a standard person to digest. What does the following mean on page '15 of 42' and '23 of 42'?:

- 4.1.2.1 Wall Height; Requirement 'West: 7.5m (based on gradient 1:6)'; Proposed '8m'

A layman would interpret that the height of 98 Cutler Street would increase by 50cm, which would impact neighboring views. But then it also notes East Wall to be 6.7m (decreasing from 7m). All this information is a bit too much, but keeping the same height of the roof would be great. Thanks.

I object to this development -so inappropriate to current and appropriate social landscape.

Better placed at Brookvale
These ‘boarding houses’ are all about the developers turning a quick buck.
Look at the one on Warringah Rd near Maccas
Already been sold on once and applied to increase the density! They lost that application due to local protest but they shouldnt be in this area
Too many people on one block