Let's see Frenchs Forest move ahead ad a suburb for all people, individuals, couples, families.
This location is opposite business parks, near transport and shop. Great spot for a boarding house.
I have not problem with this application.
Boarding houses are an essential requirement in our community to help those in need.
People in need are not bad people and should not be treated like outcasts.
Its interesting to note a large proportion of people against it are migrant families who have been welcomed into Australia and now they don't want to share!
Let's keep residential development within the planned Phase 1, 2 and 3 of the Frenchs Forest Precinct planning. This site should stay as business use. We need careful planning to continue to create work spaces and employment opportunities in Frenchs Forest.
hello,
Parking in this area is impossible at the best of times, to add to a major problem is not a benefit to the community and will interfere with the commercial interests of existing businesses in the street.
There has already been issues and complaints from SES parking issues.
The establishment of a gym with more cars will cause further frustration from existing businesses and their customers.
Regards David Wright
We are a cafe in Narrabeen and have been badly affected by the opening of 2 recent cafes - The Tramshed is one.
The Tramshed has taken a huge slice of our business due the play area, the tram itself and now there is an application for another cafe- we ask that you consider us as a local small business and help to keep our doors open, we have been here for 15 years.
We are wondering how many more cafes Narrabeen can take before it sends us all out of business-surely common sense must prevail.
We know that the car park has been extended due to the B Line but on certain days we find it hard to find any parking available ( our customers also comment on this).
Thankyou
As many people have pointed out already in many forums, the Forest area is already struggling with infrastructure inadequacies in all forms. This will just add to the load of this failure at different Government levels.
Let the road work get completed & see how that copes - it is only designed to address the problem BEFORE the hospital is taken into account.
Water - I was informed by a senior Water Board (as it was then known) engineer 15 years ago there was only enough supply into the Northern Beaches Council (NBC) area for another 250 dwellings... That was then. We now see water pressure problems in Dee Why & other high density residential areas.
Build the infrastructure first, THEN look at the options for this type of thing in appropriate areas.
Our area is not conducive to boarding houses, it's a family area which is already struggling with excessive traffic and development. If you want to supply 'boarding houses' to the beaches, then perhaps look at putting them in already built up areas, close to public transport and shops.
I think this new development suits the area and to help house the growing population in the area. The street appeal of these apartments is amazing. it looks and feels like a modern house has been designed.
Lets ensure there is well planned and scaled development throughout the Northern Beaches. Accommodation for the varied needs of our community. I would prefer to see approved boarding housing, operating to high standards, rather than individuals turning private homes into illegal boarding houses.
We don't want all these boarding houses popping up all over our nice quiet area when we already are faced with many units being built around the new Northern Beaches Hospital.
I live next door to this DA and the extension of the flat section part of the new roof and the southern pitched long section of extended roof will block all of the water view we currently enjoy from our study window which is on the street end of our home
We would like to see the height limit adhered to
Yours sincerely
Elyane Messara
9 Pavilion st Queenscliff
HI there, we own unit 9/2 Brookvale Avenue and are concerned that the height of the proposed new building will exceed normal height restrictions and that this will impact the privacy of our two bedrooms and rear courtyard.
Both of our bedrooms face 4 Brookvale Avenue and the new building will completely block out all daylight from both rooms and also be a privacy concern.
I'm at a loss as to why you have allowed such a breach of normal height restrictions?
We have also recently spent over $40k on having the property repainted. What assurances can you give us that the demolition of the current building and the construction of the new building won't directly degrade the work we've all paid for?
Thank you.
John
Dear Sir
My apologies for not responding earlier with regards to this development proposal.
The size of this development is gross over development for the area . 22 studio apartments on a 1012 size block in a low residential zone is preposterous.
If you consider the minimum block size is 600 in Cromer - other home owners on a 1012 size block wouldn’t even be able to split their block in half to place another dwelling. Perhaps this IS something Council might consider - reducing the block size to 500. This would then enable these larger 1012 blocks to be more sympathetically developed in lines with the local aesthetic. A 2 storey apartment block is well out of character.
The street is a main thoroughfare however the street is not quite wide enough for parked cars. It takes heavy peakhour traffic with buses and commuters. It is also directly opposite a childcare centre. The congestion it would create in this busy street would make it very dangerous.
Even if you reduced the application to 10 it would be too big. It’s the wrong place for such a development.
Please consider my comments.
I would like to oppose the removal/pruning of trees at 83 Prince Alfred Pde. Unfortunately many trees have been removed in the vicinity of this house. For every tree that is removed it increases the danger to other trees as it opens up the canopy and it allows the wind to go through them instead to changing the direction of the wind to pass over the canopy at lesser force. This house faces due west which means that instead of being given protection from the heat they will have an increase in the temperature the house is exposed to.
Also the number of native animals in this area is decreasing dramatically.
I am fine with progress and agree that we need more dwellings in this ever expanding city, but this needs to managed in parallel with appropriate infrastructure. This is not happening in Warriewood, resulting in a local traffic and commuter traffic nightmare. High density developments such as this one will only compound the problem. When are NB council going to address this issue? (a couple of yellow buses on existing bus lanes isn't the solution!)
I also agree with all the aforementioned comments.
In addition, there is insufficient space on the narrow road for visitor parking. The extra congestion due to extra time required for waste collection will be be a menace to an already very busy road in the early mornings.
There is insufficient local public transport. The 12 minute walk to the B1 bus will be too much for most, particularly on rainy days, and the B1 car park will not be able to accommodate the increased demand.
This development is too large for the area.
This development sets a precedent which will be detrimental to the ambience of the area.
There have been a lot of improvements to infrastructure on Macpherson Street and Warriewood roads at rate payers expense. One wonders whether this was also to accomodate large development activities such as this one at 29-31 Warriewood Road. The rate payers do not want extra congestion in this area.
I agree with all the comments above. The Northern Beaches is a wonderful part of Sydney and there must be very careful thought and planning given to all future development. What is the end goal? Allow developers to enrich themselves with poor quality buildings that are unsuited to the area and negatively impact the existing residents? No. We must only allow for thoughtful, positive development which facilitates growth while being in keeping with the area's character, infrastructure and community. As a Council you have a responsibility to show restraint, wisdom and a vision for the future. People are at the end of their tether with government at all levels. You will be judged on your decisions and will pay a price if you get it wrong. Do what is right and let all stakeholders accrue the benefits.
This is pure greed. A cynical exercise to see how many dwellings we can possible fit in the one space and get away with it. There are no other flats on Warriewood rd including the development next door highlighting how out of character this development would be.
What was allowed on Macpherson st was bad enough but the spread of this cancer needs to stop.
I understand the need/desire to develop this land however it should be sympathetic to its surrounds and suitable for the infrastructure. A block of flats in this location meets neither of these criteria.
This area can not accommodate more development such as this. Our roads are so congested and the ongoing and ever-changing temporary traffic conditions cause major delays.
Mona Vale and North Narrabeen Public schools are over crowded.
This area used to be so lovely with paddocks, horses and wildlife. Now its a sea of roof tiles. An Apartment block in this part will further stymie the aesthetic of the area.
This proposal of a boarding house is Not suitable for essential service people. These people are Shift workers that need their rest and sleep at different times of the day or night.
Having 27 up to 54 other people in the accommodation will not allow for rest or sleep for these people.
Mr Holman is the owner/ developer of this proposal, and the neighbour Of course he will say he supports this DA.
This is owner/developer smoke screen.
This development is not being place on Victoria Road, Gladesville, and has NO comparison.
The Local Community in Belrose do not want Wyatt Ave turned into Victoria Road. As the owner/ developer is alluding to.
Belrose and Gladesville are two different suburbs with two different Planning Controls.There are No comparisons.
The owner of this development is the neighbour.
But is acknowledging he will be affected by the
Issues this proposal will bring.So why say it is acceptable. Maybe it is acceptable to the owner who is only interested in making money.
We all can’t just get up and sell our properties, to make a profit, or continuing development expansion. Our properties are our Superannuation.
This proposal does not fit the C8 or the R2 character of the area. It is WAY out of character.
This will severely impact the residents in Wyatt Ave
and the sounding area.
This cannot be assessed under the SEPP of affordable Housing, as this does not apply to the
C8 Locality.
Approval of this Application will set a precedent
For other undesirable and unsuitable intensive urban development in the C8 Locality.
Development should blend with the character of the area not stand out and not conflict.
Desired Future Character C8 Locality Statement in part.
“The present character of the Belrose North Locality will remain unchanged except in circumstances specifically addressed as follows.
The natural landscape including landform and vegetation will be protected and, where possible, enhanced. Buildings will be grouped in Areas that will result in the minimum amount of disturbance of vegetation and landforms and buildings which are designed to blend with the colours and textures
Of the natural landscape will be strongly encouraged.”
There has been NO attempt to adhere to the Desired Future Character Statement.
This is a Very High Density “for profit Development.
Excessive Noise will be generated.
Traffic will be at grid lock.
The large number of people in one confined building.(up to 54 tenants)
Lighting spill onto my residence and other neighbours homes is unacceptable
Movement of occupants.They are transit tenants who will not form part of the local stable community.
This is a community who cares about our locality, our families and our environment.
This development will not benefit existing long time residents of the community in any way.
We strongly object to This Development Application, and ask Council to reject this Application.
Our primary school, Narrabeen North Public School, has gone from approx 500 to over 700 students in three years, with more demountable classrooms each year. Where does it end? We can't get out of our driveway for all the traffic gridlock. Local roads are regularly congested & we're delayed by road closures for more building works. We bought into a quiet suburb that is rapidly becoming high rise, urban & congested.
This has got to be a joke. This is not what Belrose was set up for or should be set up for so i suggest this to be declined. I don't think anyone bought houses here to be anywhere near boarding houses. What is the council thinking to even consider such an application?
Please put your thinking caps on and decline this application.
Too much pressure on infrastructure and changing the character of the suburb
This DA is incorrectly listed as 16 Wyatt Ave, Belrose. The DA address is actually 14 Wyatt Ave, Belrose.
This Boarding House DA is for a category 2 development which is permissible in the same way a conventional house is permissible (houses are also category 2). It consists of 27 rooms with 10 car, 8 motorcycle parking spaces on a block size of 2,298 m^2. When compared to other DA's for boarding houses (eg 126 Victoria Rd, Gladesville, which is 58 rooms, 12 cars, 12 motorcycles on 569m^2), this boarding house seems very appropriate.
I live next door to this proposed development and I support it.
We have such poor road infrastructure where on earth is this traffic going to go? Pop in a house - not a bunch of flats. It’s already crowded in Warriewood now developers continue to leave us in a mess.