All recent comments on applications from Randwick City Council, NSW

The council has not notified any of the neighbours of this development. They should be required to now show proof that they have. If they cannot, it should be referred to the NSW ICAC for investigation. It seems strange that nobody nearby has been notified.

Enough already!
As far as I know, Planning Alerts was not intended as a chat room, or if it was/is, I stand corrected.
Of course that's what I'm doing here, so shoot me.
T Craven started this with a measured contribution and with an apparent awareness of the actual development - how it is now, what's proposed, and thoughts on the proposed change/s. Of course they're personal. That's why we're here. I think.
Then Ryan weighed in with a content-free comment and perhaps a tad too much sarcasm and giving it a shot at being a stand-up comedian.
Then Andrew popped up as Ryan's best bud showing that he's totally missed the point - with his 'within regulations' parts - about the very reasons councils call for input from interested and affected parties.
If you have nothing useful to say about the subject, the actual development in question, please zip it and maybe go to a more general forum / thread to vent.
If you're annoyed with what I've said, please try to step up and hold your counsel. I don't care, won't read, Teflon.
Mic dropped.

Mr Ryan, why are you playing guess the gender and ethnicity game and getting it all wrong? Any why are you are on this website which is for people to have their say on DAs? Why are you continually trying to agressively and personally attack commenters? You have not made one point about this specific DA yourself. It seems like you are just here to troll, and cannot provide any reasoned arguments so I presume you are in real estate yourself.

Mr Craven, it baffles the mind how you continue to miss the point. Your whole argument is based on Clovelly's "charm and character" and that its "(white) heritage" is something we should maintain. This is all SUBJECTIVE. Not everyone agrees with you that Clovelly's historic architecture has "charm or character" and not everyone agrees that its heritage is something we should keep going forward! Once again, you are not the arbiter of such things. Please allow for alternative views!

I won't even point out the contradictions you make in your own essay above.

Dear Council, I implore you to ignore this entire thread, including my own commentary. None of this should be wasting your valuable time!

Dear 6A Clifton....good luck! Maybe I'll invite you and Mr Craven over for a dinner party...should be fun.

Disagree. "one man's trash is another man's treasure" suggests that what one person perceives as undesirable urban design may be highly valued by another. However, the built environment of Clovelly has unique features and characteristics that contribute to its charm and appeal which is gradually being altered by unsympathetic renovations by and developments by newer residents, significantly accelerating over the past 10 years. Altering these aspects indiscriminately at a whim can lead to the loss of diversity and homogenization of the built environment, diminishing the distinctiveness of the area.

The phrase overlooks the importance of community input and consent in shaping the built environment. Residents should have a say in any proposed changes that could impact their quality of life and sense of belonging.

The phrase in question fails to acknowledge the value of the character and amenity of Clovelly. By altering the character of Clovelly by gradual encroachment of unsympathetic developmentwithout considering these aspects, important cultural legacies are erased, depriving future generations of valuable heritage.

Development decisions should consider the long-term sustainability and livability of an area. Rushing to alter the character of a neighborhood based on short-term trends or individual preferences overlooks the need for thoughtful urban planning and sustainable development practices.

The lack of appreciation for heritage and character in traditional housing in Australia in general poses significant challenges, particularly when coupled with an increasing societal trend of prioritising individuality over community. Traditional Australian housing, such as the iconic weatherboard cottages and federation-style homes, represents more than just architectural styles; they embody the cultural heritage and history of the nation.

When these historic properties are neglected or demolished in favor of imposing modern or poorly designed facades, it erodes the unique character of neighborhoods and diminishes the sense of identity and belonging for residents. These homes often hold stories of generations past, reflecting the evolution of Australian society and serving as tangible links to the past.

Moreover, In pursuit of personalized living spaces, many individuals opt for modern, cookie-cutter designs that prioritize their immediate needs and preferences without considering the broader impact on the community. This can lead to the fragmentation of neighborhoods, as each household becomes isolated within its own bubble, disconnected from the shared history and traditions that once bound communities together.

You're welcome.

Can I object to Mr Craven missing the point as the sarcasm was clearly missed? To spell it out more clearly for you Mr Craven...everybody has different tastes and you are not the arbiter of what looks nice and what does not look nice. One man's trash is another man's treasure (and no, I am not talking about literal trash and treasure). Live and let live.

Such cutting edge visionaries advocating for the demolition of Australian traditional architecture. Because who needs houses attuned to the environment and built to last more than a century when we can throw up a white box that might last 20 years?

Federation houses actually have several environmental advantages over modern styles, lessening reliance on energy-heavy cooling methods. This veranda in particular would have been designed to reduce heat load and avoid the need for energy-guzzling air conditioning.

Notwithstanding, I love a nice orange tiled kitchen and a macrame hanging basket myself, but this DA immediately evoked childhood memories of 70s houses in Sydney's outer west (not including Paramatta, another historical area now being destroyed by unsympathetic development). And I am not talking about architecturally designed ones.

Note to council that I have family history in Bondi that dates back to the 1800s but missed out on the golden inheritance ticket and moved back later. The only real estate I inherited was 2 burial plots in Waverley Cemetery.

And the opinion that property owners get a free pass to do whatever they please just because they are rich enough to buy into the overpriced eastern suburbs housing market, and nobody can say a thing? The role of urban planning should be to harmonise individual property rights with the broader interests of the community, as it once was.

Totally agree with Ryan. I also dislike Federation style. If the DA application is within the council regulations then knock it down and build what they want. Their land their style their choice. Trying to sway council to stop someone doing what they want on their land within regulations is wrong.

I personally dislike the Federation style. I love the 1970s (groovy baby). I think all designs in the street should fit my personal taste and no one else’s. Council should ignore that architecture is subjective.

Let’s all get involved to dictate what someone does on their own land even if it doesn’t block views, encroach on privacy etc. just because.

Let’s make it more costly for people to remodel their homes, despite massive construction cost inflation, just to suit the tastes of Mr Craven!

I second this.
As with all Council-reported devt app'ns, the devil is in the (lack of) detail.
Folks will read the Council one-liners and think: "That looks like nothing much is changing, quite innocuous; I guess I'm OK with it."
The brevity, in the extreme, of the information supplied by Councils, which can be read as discouragement-to-objection, is unacceptable.
If it wasn't for folks like T Craven who dig deeper, the average person-in-the-street, like me, would never know.
And so continues the relentless creep of the destruction of our heritage, all on 'our' current Councils' watches.

I object to this Development Application due to its design, which deviates significantly from the character of the surrounding area and threatens to diminish its appeal. The proposed demolition of a charming Federation-style facade, complete with a balcony and heritage windows, in favor of a modern, uninspired concrete facade devoid of any historical charm is horrifying. Furthermore, replacing the balcony with a carport and installing oversized modern windows, balcony and doors only exacerbates the dissonance with the neighborhood's aesthetic. The proposed design resembles something reminiscent of the worst of 1970s architecture and design and stands in stark contrast to the architectural heritage of the area, ultimately detracting from its visual appeal.

In response to Mr Smith's comment: "Council has increased parking spaces on Fenton Ave." This is a specious response to the genuine concerns of Mr Johnson. While the council has marginally increased the total number of spaces available it has imposed time restrictions on the majority of them. These places are not suitable as resident parking, it is not feasible for us to keep running out to move our cars every two hours. So infact the number of available spots has decreased for residents. As I long time renting resident I can tell you from lived experience that the council has made parking a nightmare for local residents. Where once I could park anywhere on the street when I get home from work now I find myself driving around around often for 15 minutes or more.
In a further note I would venture that Mr Smith stands to benefit personally from the development and in that light the use of insulting terms like 'Nimbyism' in order to shut down conversations lacks integrity. There is no need to invalidate the genuine concerns of local residents with half truths in the pursuit of self interest.

In the interests of truth and contrary to Mr Johnson’s comment, I have never owned 6 Fenton Ave.
I live in Chapman Ave.
Peter Smith

In the interests of openness and transparency, I'm a resident in Chapman Ave. The previous comment added to this thread was the from former owner of 6 Fenton Ave who sold the property to the developer.

Let’s support people struggling with high rentals in the Eastern Suburbs. Our young people, displaced seniors and essential workers need budget accommodation. Council has increased parking spaces on Fenton Ave. Many locals have off street parking. Nimbyism has no place in MAROUBRA. Let’s get behind this development and have it as soon as possible

Despite months of debate and an appearance in the Land and Environment court this developer has once again applied for a modification to the DA that seeks to reduce the parking space allowance for a 17-dwelling apartment block from 7 to 2! To try and get this over the line they've included a car share space on the 2-hr. time limited on street parking on Fenton Ave, a public street that has seen the introduction of Mutiple parking restrictions in the last 6 months to try and ease resident and business concerns. They've used the 2 car figure in the submission to indicate that they only expect the development to generate an extra 2 traffic movements a day! Thats farcical. Council and the planning authority must view this proposal with skepticism and provide certainty to residents that the SEPP and planning controls are adhered to by refusing this modification to the DA.

Dear Randwick Council,
I think it's crucial that the planning department reviews and measures this application in tune with the council's wider initiatives for increasing canopy cover across the Randwick area (fantastic work). At a time when it is harder to get plants established due to extreme weather patterns, keeping more trees in the ground and building on what we have should be the priority here. As the previous comments have also raised, an infestation can in most cases be treated.
A good designer would be able to work around this when it comes to planning the pool. And having shade after a swim is always great in the summer too!
Thank you.

To remove seven trees is ridiculous. As their arborist said “they are infested “, so why can’t they be treated? Maybe a second arborist’s opinion should be sought. Repositioning of the pool area around the trees would be more sympathetic.

I fully agree with the previous comment.

Removal of 7+ mature or semi-mature trees seems excessive for the installation of a swimming pool. The arborist's report implies they are of low value, or 'infested' - surely the infestation can be treated rather than being used as a justification to remove them? This is a lot of tree cover being removed for a luxury item, so near to the beach. I would propose re-designing the pool to minimise tree destruction.

To Louis Coorey. Thank you for taking my phone call last week. In principal I have no objection for a medical centre in this property. However I believe the heritage of the building needs to be determined by the appropriate government entity. I object to the hours of operation the applicant is asking for. As a resident of Raleigh Park for over 20 years the hours of operation i.e. 8am to 6pm Monday to Sunday with occasional out of hours uses is excessive, most Dr. surgeries are 8.30 to 6pm Monday to Friday. The Heritage building once owned by WD & HO Wills is part of this residential development and the weekend operating hours could be intrusive on the general living standards of Raleigh Park given our outdoor space and parks.
I have some concerns on the heritage of this building with the removal of some heritage "bits" to be stored and the building and the proposed elevator next to a beautiful stairway.
There is an issue with parking, and I am waiting to see a copy of a traffic report the Community Association of Raleigh Park have commissioned.

I object to this DA. The upper storey addition is far too bulky and imposing with regards to the front elevation. The modern material used dominates and detracts from the Federation character of the house.

On more general note, the epidemic of unsympathetic first floor additions renovations of Federation houses that have stood for over a century is destroying the character of Randwick.

We do not need more boarding house type accommodation. All completed boarding houses in Kingsford have vacancies. Please deny this application.

Please don’t install advertising on Anzac Parade which will block the footpath. The footpath is for people to wall on. It is not for advertising. Thank you.