All recent comments on applications from Waverley Council, NSW

Extremely upsetting.
Destroying trees, killing of
Possums, bird's habitats.
Utterly disgraceful.
Not to mention so called
Affordable housing, sure.
Rubbish no such thing.
Just pretty word's to make
These developments appealing.
This like many more to come
Need to be stopped.

Agree that the street tree must not be removed so the developer can construct a garage. It is a mature tree decades old and therefore not replaceable

This is a definite NO to a removal of a street tree (not on private property) for the convenience and profit of private property.

This street tree provides important bird and insect habitat, and this is absolutely crucial when so many trees are being removed from private property, often for entirely spurious reasons.

The tree also provides shade and local amenity for residents and people nearby. People choose this street over others to walk to the beach and shops in the heart of Bondi precisely because it has shade and feels good. This amenity increases the value of ALL properties in the street.

I hope planning authorities take care with an approval for a roof terrace. They can be a source of great problems for neighbours if they are used for rowdy parties :
( which they usually are )

Stephen,
I think your observation is accurate. It's always pleasing to see comments such as yours, indicating that people are interested in the matter, and not content to assume that simply because the council is doing it, all must be right with the world.
Wordy reasons and excuses such as those shown above for this application are often a red flag. The old 'risk of failure' catch-all.
In the past couple of years, our small group has done an amateur analysis and follow-up over time of a significant number of these Waverley TPOs.
The limitation is of course that we can only track tree removal and replacement that is clearly visible from the public domain, meaning pretty-much at the fronts of the properties.
Without getting into detail, of which there's a lot, our findings are that a concerning percentage of the required replacement trees are never planted, and a significant percentage of those that *are* planted are removed some time, and sometimes quite a short time, after council inspection is completed, if indeed there ever was one.
This analysis, conducted over quite a reasonable period of time as mentioned, would lead us to be concerned that the scheme is something of a paper tiger and that perhaps it's being done to get ticks in (green) boxes, with little genuine commitment to the program and the need for it.
It's our intention at some stage to challenge the council on this matter and ask it to publish for public review a detailed analysis of all instances of TPO listings which fall specifically under the tree removal and replacement category.
We will seek to have included, photographic evidence, which does not identify addresses or houses but simply the subject trees, over a time-line for each tree removed and replaced, and details of fines levied for non-compliance, especially for unauthorised removals of required replacement trees. These details will include no personal information, but give the suburb and road name, the reason for the fine, the amount, the date levied and the date paid.
It would be interesting to compare this to our study and evidence.

I know examples where council sends a couple of notices to plant these replacement trees, never actually ensuring they're planted. Please enforce these directives

The people saying 5 storeys is too high clearly can't be locals as there is a 9 storey building above the Hub just 100m down the road. This development is 4 storeys smaller and very much in line with the development of the area.
There is a desperate need for more housing in the area as it is very hard for young people and essential workers to find housing locally, more flats means more opportunities for people to live in and celebrate the wonderful neighbourhood that we call home.
Higher density is also better for preventing climate change so this development can help the council towards it's goal of contributing towards a better environment for Australia.

Agree with comments. I object as too tall for the area.

I agree with Hyacinth. This new development will be too tall for the narrow street. Hopefully Waverley Council is not reverting to the bad old days of planned high rises in Bondi. With climate change and sea level rise Bondi will become like Rio De Janeiro beaches- and surfers Paradise beach and just have a shore break instead of a rolling surf.

I had understood the planning height limit to be 3 storeys in Hall Street. A 5 storey building will create a wind tunnel and also impact the surrounding homes and streets, casting a shadow. The only winner here is the developers, the 5 storey limit will impact views and property prices of all existing homeowners who are directly or indirectly behind this site. Please do not set a precedent for 5 stories in Hall Street . Developer gets rich all others suffer

5 stories is too high for this slim street. It will create a wind tunnel and a precedent for other developers eyeing off real estate in our precious little Hall St. and I do mean little.
The closer to the beach the lower the height limit should be. And under no circumstances should developers be allowed leeway on that for any reason.

Why not remove all trees in Bondi. We can then just enjoy the view of concrete everywhere.

How can the council approve a 5 storey building when we are in a R3 zoning area !!
This is bondi beach not bondi junction !!
Other developments have been denied on height grounds and were not as high as this so this should never get through !!

"DA for various unauthorised works PAN-486201" is the unusual title for this DA.
Is this a retrospective application to have Council approval for works already completed?
If so, not only does approval set a confronting precedent but the absence of any information on the epwgate council website must surely be against an abundance of Council's own regulations.
The link to Planning Authority source for this application does work.
There are no documents to view, just a list with date and description of council processes.
Again, setting a confronting precedent for owners/developers to do whatever they wish without seeking planning approval with all of the checks and balances they provide for a safe and responsible build.
There is no information available for an informed response. bu the community supposedly 'being notified".

For the attention of those managing proposed building applications at Waverley Council.

To whom it may concern,
As a long term resident of Vaucluse and a regular user of the very busy Old South Head Rd, I write to formally raise an objection to the proposed development at 483 Old South Head Road, Rose Bay NSW 2029.

The architectural plans submitted with this DA indicate the inclusion of a Hotel comprising 19 rooms with NO indication of a garage or on site parking facilities.

It is highly likely that there will be at least 15 or more cars at this point on Old South Head Rd (19 × Hotel rooms) turning, trying to park, reversing, etc; all of which will significantly increase the 'traffic load' on an already very busy road.

Waverley Council must request that the DA address this design fault considering the heavy traffic that is already apparent on Old South Head Rd and in particular this section where mutiple shop fronts, bus traffic and road intersections occur.

If the current plans are approved, the very busy nature of this section of Old South Hd Rd will rise significantly and increase the possibility of serious accidents to residents & visitors.

I look forward to Waverley Council addressing the design faults in this DA for 483 Old South Head Road, Rose Bay NSW 2029.
Thankyou

I agree with previous comments. Let’s not make this a mini surfers paradise and line developers pockets. Limit the height to 3 storeys when so close to the beach. These apartments will in no way be affordable, they are prime real estate. Keep Bondi accessible and enjoyable for all!

I agree totally with Hyacinth and add my voice to hers. What was once light filled and happy warm places enjoyed by all become dark places. If you don’t do it for us, the residents, then think of the slow unrelenting killing of this atmosphere for travellers. It ruins what we have, it’s as simple as that.
Please listen to your residents and please get strong and robust laws preventing this happening as I am aware how deep the pockets are of the builders etc who want to profit from these constructions and once it is ruined we will never get it back.

The closer a building is to the beach the less storeys should be allowed for obvious reasons. Very tall buildings kill the joy of everyone else behind them. They get less sun. These tall buildings create horrible wind tunnels. The ‘affordable ‘ housing ruse will be used time and again now to make money.
Waverley has not got in place solid rulings to make this actually functional. Do NOT allow extra height or increased FSR based on this flimsy evidence. Let’s be clear. This is designed simply to make money and therefore should be subject to all the strict requirements our planning laws currently have.

Yet another MHNDU project that started off as units and ends up as an oversized house in excess of established height limits (exploiting a planning approval process that allows taller heights for unit blocks).

A number of houses in the area have been rejected for building heights much smaller than this - why should this one be allowed just because the developers have the money and time to exploit the planning approval process? MHNDU pointing to their own recent monstrosity of a project on the street (another project that was granted extra height and floor space because it was meant to be units, only for them to change it post approval to a house) as a precedent for why the building height should be allowed is particularly galling.

Well said Mia. +1.

Agree with previous comments around original development approval. Clearly this was not in line with original DA and is an upside for developers with negative impact for the community.