All recent comments on applications from Randwick City Council, NSW

I am concerned about the access road which is a crown road with a locked gate at the top. This concerns me as there will be cars shining headlights all night long into our house at the top of this road on reservoir street (currently this only happens very occasionally on a Saturday after a wedding).

The fact that it will take water run off from the golf course and national park and golf balls will be a danger. The golf course should not have to change its business to accomodate.

Isn’t there a historic sandstone carriage way that went from prince Henry hospital to the coast cemetery! I would hate for this history to be lost.

The biggest issue however is that you will now have new dwellings on either side of Cullen driving range this range has significant history in the area and is popular, it’s currently open space but I feel that this development will open the doors for Cullens to be rezoned and sold off which will put terrible pressure on parking in the area and the national park.

I don’t have too much of an issue with the size and scale of the dwellings much better than appartments. But the access and it being sandwiched between the st Michael’s golf course and the driving range smells a bit off.

This development was approved with the proviso that the apartments would not add to the already crowded street parking. Their solution was a car lift to a basement car park.
This lift has not worked beyond, at most, the first six months of occupancy. Constant visitations my repair men during that time indicated it was faulty from the start.
The 18 basement car spaces at 97 Carrington Rd remain unused. The street parking has now become more and more difficult. Many of us would love off street parking, but our circa 1930's apartments simply do not have the availability. Please do not approve car lifts in the future, they don't work.

I would like to vigorously object to the proposed development of what is really a commercial event facility in a residential area with no provision for off street parking. This commercial development will further increase the dangerous children’s pickup and drop off hazard occurring at this location.

The current use of the hall for commercial activities including dance classes most afternoons of the week makes parking impossible in the area. Additional development of the event facility will exacerbate the problem.

Most importantly there is a serious traffic safety issue outside of the facility. Currently parents dropping and picking up children from the facility double park up to 8 cars along. In addition the drop offs at Clovelly Public school 8-9.15am 2.45 - 3.30pm force parking traffic into Varna St and all side roads up to Varna Park with all spaces occupied so residents have to walk 100’s of metres to find a park.

I have a very alarming video of the dangerous double parking pickup / drop off of children situation which was forwarded to council on the 5.9.22, I would like to send this video to planners responsible for this application.

The noise from the current commercial use of the building is well above reasonable levels with loud music played by the commercial tenants and audible across the road. Additional capacity at the proposed development will increase the noise and severely impact the local residents. The strip of x 6 semis across the road on Varna St all have bedrooms 3m back from the street front. The increased noise from the proposed development will negatively impact all of the residents with bedrooms facing the proposed commercial facility.

The aesthetic of the proposed commercial development is not in keeping with the historic residential streetscape of both Varna St, Arden St and the existing Church.

The use of the Church has traditionally been for faith based activities, the proposed development will inevitably be used for commercial activities creating an unsustainable traffic, parking and noise load in a residential area.

Lastly I am unable to find an approved DA for the current usage of the building for commercial (for profit) activities. Is the operating in breach of council regulations? Please forward this complaint of current useable to your compliance team.

Thank you for your attention to this objection.

Regards,

David Walsmsn
44 Varna St Waverley.

I support this Development Application for the proposed carport, vehicle crossing and fence.

Has council done traffic management plan have they allowed disabled parking spaces for cars and buses using the hall for private function after school sports. Knowles Ave parking is already difficult busy with traffic.

The Bunnerong Road footpath is too narrow to install these gigantic advertising machines. This will cause the footpath to become single-file only.

I also agree with David James and Rosalie Wattel, that this proposal is over the top in this neighbourhood and will cause more traffic and parking stress for the local community.
Once again the developers are being greedy and not showing any consideration for the people who live in this lovely area.
Shame on them and Randwick Council if they allow this development to go ahead.

I agree with David James. The bulk and size of this proposal does not sit well with me. Greedy developers are altering the beauty and feel of this lovely suburb.

We are the house next door to 2 Dick Street. When is it possible to view the plans. The search didn't not complete.

Regarding the FSR, I am concerned about the accuracy and transparency of the SEE. Page 17 states "Under Clause 4.4, the subject site has a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.75:1. The proposed FSR is 0.78:1, compliant with Clause 4.4". This is a contradictory statement as it indicates non compliance. If a non-compliant FSR is in fact being sought then the reasons for justification need to be discussed in the application.

The Anzac Parade footpath is too narrow to install these gigantic advertising machines. This will cause the footpath to become single-file only.

18 stories in Kensington (& Kingsford) is utter madness.
Existing residents don't care about state government building or population targets & certainly don't care about the Randwick council K2K plans when result in situations like this: with massive unsightly towers that are cheapo boarding houses in cross roads adjacent to the light rail.
The light rail was meant to address 30 years of zero investment in transport solutions for the eastern suburbs & its existing residents not to cater for eyesores, high density 18 storey towers and not for masses of short term student accommodation that is a 175 room boarding house. There are already soo many boarding houses in this area. Why don't they build decent medium density housing for families & long term residents?Chuck this proposal in the bin & come back with something that works for the community and residents that is more in line with existing building heights and density.

To whom it may concern,
There has been a rumour that there is to be a large development in Burrows Park and off dog leash turned into a carpark.
As a local resident for over 40’years I would like to issue a strong objection to anything other than a small kiosk being associated with the bowling club.
I trust that the councillors will realise that Clovelly is not meant for large scale developments and it is its unique charm that brings many people to enjoy the area.
Please don’t commercialise something so precious.

Kind regards,
Carolyn Stubbs
Ph [removed by PlanningAlerts admin]

Your joking- how any development 18 stories high could be considered is insane. Should be thrown out - high restrictions should be enforced. Future developments should cater for the new world and have mixed use throughout. Retail - commercial space including shared work environments with residential above.

We live directly behind 71 Bilga cresent Malabar.
The current build structure appears to have three large windows that look directly into our backyard and pool.

This proposed development will create a 2 storey commercial business, an event/conference centre, in the middle of a residential neighbourhood. The area already suffers from significant parking stress, and the proposed development does not allow for any additional parking. The bulk, scale and aesthetics of the proposed development are not in keeping with the neighbourhood, which is characterized by single storey bungalows, semi-detached and detached residential dwellings. The small-scale commercial activities currently undertaken in the church hall already contribute significantly to the parking stress in the neighbourhood, especially at weekends. The proposed 2 storey development will enable these commercial activities to be extended and broadened. This will undoubtedly bring more traffic and congestion to the neighbourhood. I appreciate the existing single storey church hall is old and probably run-down, and I also acknowledge the church needs to upgrade its disability access. However, I strongly object to this large, out-of-character, 2 storey commercial enterprise being built in a residential neighbourhood.

I strongly object to the planned development . This is due to the remarkable heritage features and distinct heritage characteristics of No 3 Berwick St and its position in a row of historic buildings.

Berwick Street clearly offers several worthy inter-war heritage houses for consideration, two of which are currently listed on the Coogee Federation Heritage walk website. Local residents have previously objected to DAs in 2019 and 2020.19-21 Berwick Street are currently listed on the Coogee Federation Heritage walk website.

Nos 1, 3, 5 Berwick Street (which are of the same period) should be heritage listed not only for their individual worth but for the cohesive nature and uniformity of this rare group of heritage houses in Coogee.

These buildings are unique in that they form a row of three with 1 Berwick St in a street which has had so much heritage destroyed. If Number 3 is demolished it will destroy the cohesive part of the streetscape at that end of the street.

These Berwick Street homes are an integral part of the historic streetscape aesthetic and offer some truly distinctive insights into our history. They are a rare example of the inter-war period with intact fences from the same period and part of our fast disappearing history.

Therefore, they need preserving for future generations similar to the Edgecumbe Estate currently being considered.

The ongoing eradication of homes that are of ‘modest’ heritage importance according to developer paid assessments undermines and diminishes the beauty and historic essence of our suburb.

Randwick City Council under its LEP has a duty of care to the community and is obliged 'to ensure the conservation of the environmental heritage, aesthetic and costal character of Randwick’ and is bound to the Burra Charter, that provides the standard guidelines for heritage conservation in Australia.

Randwick Council has erred in not doing a timely heritage assessment of these buildings in 2019.

In general, developers are not local residents but are usually from well outside the area and make money from destruction of our historic buildings. Why is council ignoring local residents and allowing this to happen?

Council squashed the proposed development on 3 and 5 Berwick Street earlier this year. I thought the area was protected under the council's Heritage conservation plan, like the Edgecombe Estate.

There is no signage on the building advising of any proposed development.

This development is out of character with the area. Berwick Street cannot cope with any more car traffic.

Please refuse this application. I am a third generation Coogee resident. We are losing too many of our historic buildings to greedy developers.

Thank you

missing addition of bicycle parking infrastructure
missing addition of outdoor gym as in practice i have rarely seen swimming pools being utilized to any meaningful degree
missing mention of rainwater tank as i think those should be required for any new development applications
as Mr Craven wrote, documentation is required for transparency

Alterations and additions to an approved DA for demolition of existing structures and construction of 2 semi-detached dwellings with Torrens title subdivision.
I object to this DA on the following grounds
1. No documents on the council website apart from the above description but can be safely assumed this will be another square concrete duplex with minimal, if any garden / landscaping
2. Demolishment of yet another 100 year old freestanding house in good condition in Randwick to be replaced by a modern concrete duplex
3. Destruction of the heritage character of Randwick
4. Duplex construction will always involve destruction of the associated trees, grass and gardens contributing to the local heat island effect
5. Contribute to the increasing road and public transport congestion

Totally oppose. I have no confidence in Randwick council and the handling of the area. It is not an entertainment precinct. People live here. There are already too many caffes, inappropriate noisy liquor bars, no parking, garbage management out of control, the list goes on, I live hear and know.
Who does Randwick council represent ? clearly not the residents.
I have no faith in RCC. You have degrading the place for the profit of a few while failing at the basics you are expected to do.
Tim Gunn, Mount Street.

I ibject to this DA. The proposed redevelopment is too bulky and too high (it exceeds current height limits), will cause unacceptable overshadowing, will increase traffic at a difficult and problematic roundabout intersection, and will reduce the urban amenity in what is an already crowded and congested part of Coogee.

Yet another historic 120 year old corner house lost to inappropriate development, incrementally destroying the local character of the area. lot size of 290m2 does not comply with the LEP minimum requirement of 325m2 for R3 medium residential.
- The Developer has not adequately demonstrated any strategic merit in justifying the deviation forms the Randwick LEP and DCP.
- The development will cause unacceptable overshadowing of private residences and public areas.
-The deeps soil areas shown in the plans are highly questionable and concerns for structural damage of surrounding properties is of great concern.
-The proposed development is out of character with the existing area. As the scope of the development does not compliment the lot size.
- Cost estimate advised for the build is questionable considering the quality of the structural integrity this development must implement to ensure no damages are caused to all surrounding properties in Dolphin Street and Bream Street, not just during construction but upon completion and into the future.

The title of this DA implies there is removal of (1) tree, but reading the arborist report, it requires the removal of FIVE trees over 10m tall, all of which are stated as being in good health and medium condition. The only justification for their removal is that they are in the way of the granny flat or pool.
This should not be allowed in Randwick where we are already short of tree cover, especially mature trees.

The proposed 3 storey build is 2 metres higher than allowed.
The comparison with the 3 storey build at 5-7 Major St is not justified as that building is more than a metre below street level at the front.
There are no plans for common areas outside.
The FSR has been elevated by suggesting that 2 units will be available for affordable community housing.... not sure how this is enforced ???
The privacy for residents at 5, 3 and 1 Major St will be compromised as the 3rd storey will look directly over these properties.
The excavation of the basement is concerning considering the amount of groundwater run off experienced in this area and the fact that groundwater may be redirected adversely.
The suggestion that neighbouring properties will not have their sunlight , privacy and views impacted by the third storey is not true.