All recent comments on applications from Woollahra Municipal Council, NSW

As long as this doesn’t eat into green space I don’t have a problem with it. However in the past I have seen outsized buildings which concretise our public open space areas. Careless constructions that override regulations about maintaining public green areas should be carefully vetted and not approved until they are downsized.

This is now becoming beyond ridiculous. Houses are disappearing at an alarming rate, replaced by cheaply made units. OSH Road is gridlocked. More units, means more cars. The other day it took me 30 min just to drive to Bondi Junction.

There is no infrastructure for the amount of units going up. How is the sewerage system comping as it wasn't made for all of these additional units.?

I agree Mel and all the others,
The loss of the character of these suburbs in the east just makes your head snap and all for someone’s profit … still no housing for people who have lived here for years and even generations … what is happening, it breaks my heart.
There is someone in Woollahra council wanting to stand up to this over development .. hopefully Waverley Council could stand more firm also but unfortunately they are being knocked back by the Land and Environment Court with the backing of State govt… democracy starts with our councils and it is not being recognised .

The basement car parking is an environmental disaster due to the high water table and being at sea level. We have constant flooding in our street. Basement car parks pump out ground water constantly to the inefficient gutter system and to the ocean. This street is not appropriate for basement, below sea level construction. Also car parking in this street is at capacity already. The building needs to have visitor parking.

Hi
It would be great to know if associated landscaping includes removal of trees in this DA.
If it does, we object to the proposal.
Personally I do not think we need more 3 story apartment blocks in Rosebay. It is changing the character of our streets
Thanks

Hi
It would be great to know if associated landscaping includes removal of trees in this DA.
If it does, we object to the proposal until the facts and reason for tree removal is clear.
Thanks

We seem to be losing houses at an incredibly fast rate. Rose Bay is just becoming a suburb of apartments and traffic gridlock.

Wait until you see the 10 apartment monstrosity going up on O’Sullivan Road under the auspices of a “seniors development”. 10 Apartments of up to 4 bedrooms (for over 55s!) 20 car parks, outside spas , all on a block of land that used to house 1 family. And this is the part of O’Sullivan Road that is not supposed to have multi unit developments, but the State Government rules override council rules (and the council then succumbs to developer demands

Houses in the east are become a rarity. Traffic is an absolute nightmare as it is. Local amenities are fast disappearing, schools are at over capacity, GP's books are totally booked and good luck to emergency services trying to get through.

We are getting to the point where living in the east is no longer becoming attractive. It's just one big sardine can near packed beaches.

How many human sardines can be fitted into the East ? Developers wanting to make money out of real estate have zero interest in infrastructure which is already groaning under the weight of new power lines, new internet, overuse of roads by the tricks used to cart away materials and bring new materials, gas, etc etc etc. Not to mention the traffic situation with quadruple the amount of e were one year ago. At what point is Council going to stand up and say -
There. Is. No. More. Room. NSW government is also hell bent on development at any cost.

A. Main concern is storm water drainage. The area presents with ongoing flooding
And adequate measures for storm water should be closely considered.
It will affect houses in front and adjacent to the proposed development.

B.Another concern is the density OR FSR OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
Lot1 is only 93 sq meters. Does the council allow the erection of new 3 Storey residences in such small blocks of land ?

C. Parking is another big problem in Fern Street and these residences have no parking and no car access to their properties.
Is the parking being adequately adressed?

D. Privacy concerns and overshadowing.
The development in lot3 will greatly affect our privacy and our daylight .

I do not know why a residential building already 3 storeys has to be extended to a 4th height for a roof top space. Two storeys was the old limit… now it is 3 storeys ..I can’t help but feel the constant creep up forms a precedent. I do not agree with this height encroachment.

Deborah, If you noticed it's going to be classed commercial now!
But I agree, height restrictions should be adhered to

I do not know why a residential building already 3 storeys has to be extended to a 4th height for a roof top space. Two storeys was the old limit… now it is 3 storeys ..I can’t help but feel the constant creep up forms a precedent. I do not agree with this height encroachment.

This is not cool. Woolahra council is not doing their job properly if residents haven’t been notified of building in open space. Many authorities seem to thing that open space is code for ‘ let’s build on it ‘

Why have O’Sullivan Rd residents not been notified

Tall, thin, healthy, established Paperbark Melaleuca Quinquenervia trees were growing at 8 Diamond Bay Road along the boundary with 10 Diamond Bay Road.

Graeme Lowry-Jones is incorrect in his assertion that there was a Liberal Council in place when this application went to Council. It was a Labor /Greens Council who allowed this development. . Waste of time voting for Independents because if they don’t align with ruling party they have no say.
I would have to study the proposed plans thoroughly in order to make an assessment. Don’t remember any paper bark tree in Diamond Bay Road where family has had a property since 1964. ( see Joan Johnson’s comment. )
Essential to plan for an ageing population in the future.

The simple answer to this is to vote the Liberal dominated council out at the next election - unfortunately, this is now a few years away. Also vote out the Liberal state government which has enacted the planning laws which permit these atrocious developments.

And I say all this having voted Liberal for the last 40 years. I will be lending my time and financial support to independent candidates.

I agree with Annette Mahr's comments regarding both developments.
How are the council's so fooled by the developers, or do they just turned a blind eye?

AND do not remove anymore healthy established trees!!! For a development in Diamond Bay Road tall, healthy, established paperbark trees were removed along the boundary to be replaced with advanced trees in planter boxes!!! This is no compensation. The narrow space between the two buildings will create a wind tunnel and I cannot see that "advanced trees in planter boxes" can survive, as plants taller than our balcony walls do not survive in the wind.

Interesting that the NSW government is now offering grants to "green our neighbourhoods" while councils are approving the removal of trees so that developers can maximise building on blocks of land!! One arm doesn't know what the other arm is doing.

I strongly object to the proposed DA 541/2021 for 44 Old South Head Road and DA 540/2021 for 42 Old South Head Road.
The building height is extending in the regulated/allowed height. This DA proposal shows three storeys whereas all neighbouring houses are maximal two storey houses. 4 gigantic big dual occupancy buildings with 4 pools are planned for #42 and #44 Old South Head Road. Not just unit 2 gets demolished, the entire building gets demolished.
Council should not approve this DA as this developer purposely extended the height. Including a lift in buildings is a very popular trick used by developers to foul Councils and it's Councillors with only one purpose to build higher than allowed. This sneaky strategy is obvious here as this building is a dual occupancy building and a lift is completely unnecessary.
It is clear that the developer is testing Council if their project for DA DA541/2021 gets approved. If it gets approved, the DA540/2021 for #42 Old South Head Road will also three storey high. The architectural drawings of the application already show 3 levels.

Also, removing these big trees for swimming pools and the building means you would be contributing to area’s increase in carbon emissions. These old trees are homes for animals and removing them would change the landscape for ever.
Additionally, with the building of 4 swimming pools will add pressure on the already heavily impacted sewage and storm water systems in this area.

We, as neighbours are very concerned about the recent development proposals in our neighbourhood.

Check the profile of the owner of both joint properties: Smith And Mother Pty Ltd does not exist or has no active ABN.
Consider the submission/ objections to these applications as very serious. Residents in this are need protection from greedy developers with their overdevelopments and greedy property owners.
We already suffer enough from traffic congestions and building noise.

I vehemently object to DA 541/2021 and DA 540/2021.

I vehemently object to the proposed DA 541/2021 for 44 Old South Head Road and DA 540/2021 for 42 Old South Head Road.
The building height is extending in the regulated/allowed height. This DA proposal shows three storeys whereas all neighbouring houses are maximal two storey houses. 4 gigantic big dual occupancy buildings with 4 pools are planned for #42 and #44 Old South Head Road.
Council should not approve this DA as this developer purposely extended the height. Including a lift in buildings is a very popular trick used by developers to foul Councils and it's Councillors with only one purpose to build higher than allowed. This sneaky strategy is obvious here as this building is a dual occupancy building and a lift is completely unnecessary.
It is clear that the developer is testing Council if their project for DA DA541/2021 gets approved. If it gets approved, the DA540/2021 for #42 Old South Head Road will also three storey high. The architectural drawings of the application already show 3 levels.

Also, removing these big trees for swimming pools and the building means you would be contributing to area’s increase in carbon emissions. These old trees are homes for animals and removing them would change the landscape for ever.
Additionally, with the building of 4 swimming pools will add pressure on the already heavily impacted sewage and storm water systems in this area.

We, as neighbours are very concerned about the recent development proposals in our neighbourhood.

Check the profile of the owner of both joint properties: Smith And Mother Pty Ltd does not exist or has no active ABN.
Consider the submission/ objections to these applications as very serious. Residents in this are need protection from greedy developers with their overdevelopments and greedy property owners.
We already suffer enough from traffic congestions and building noise.

I strongly reject to DA 541/2021 and DA 540/2021.

What a joke

Well done.
Times have been tough.
Everybody needs a place to live.
Even here in the "Easts" suburbs.
We all need to help.

I object to 50 Edgecliff Rd Woollahra developing a large boarding house in a small residential neighbourhood. The plan has no outdoor space nor parking. The only place for boarders to congregate would be on Icasia Lane which is a small street to service the residents of the area.