36 Dangar Street, Randwick Seniors Housing

We object to the proposal due to the following;

1. Density - It is extremely disappointing that this site continues to be developed to such a density and it appears this has been allowed through continuous amendments / staging, with this latest proposal taking the scale / density across the site way too far. It would be good to review the initial density (FSR) across the site versus was has been developed. Also, can you can confirm the FSR / density applicable to the last stage and a justification as to how this is supported.

2. The original master plan for the site (circa 2001) accepted by Council showed the land at the corner of Danger / King Street to be “Community” land for which it has never been used and now on which a significant development is proposed (in some of the Jackson Teece master plans there was also proposed shops on this corner and further outline that Council required the corner for “public open space”). This is a material deviation with no public benefit to the community.

3. We would like the following points addressed by Major Projects;
a. Original GFA / FSR proposed on the site in the original master plans accepted (from the original master plans on the site);
b. Additional GFA and rise in FSR as amendments / stage has been added over time (how is this justified);
c. Proposed GFA / FSR with the new proposed development across the whole of the site; and,
d. Proposed GFA / FSR for the new proposed development on the land it will be constructed – what is the actual FSR on the site now being developed and how is this being supported
In assessing this, it would also be good to understand how this step up in FSR’s can be supported from a planning perspective. It would be good to also understand how the parking requirements have been met as the density and further stages have been developed, and what (if any) public benefit has come from the development (being a neighbour there is little to no interface with the development and it adds nothing to the local community). How is NSW Gov supporting an original major uplift from the original mater plans, and how the additional stages
4. Parking – we live across the road with no parking, if this is approved the additional is approved the parking will even become worst. The development is not supportive of parking, we need parking restrictions through construction at a minimum.
a. Parking when / if construction starts – without time parking in the surrounding streets ( Dangar and King St) residents parking will be reduced by constructions workers. This needs to be factored in to ensure that residents are not affected by this parking situation.

5. The density is not in keeping with the heritage precinct.

5. The heights of the new building are only supported by the precedent set by their own development and nothing else – how is that possible>

6. Montefiore are not servicing some type of shortage of demand for retirement living given the extremely high end nature of it and the majority of unit being ILU (not retirement), given the exclusive and high-end nature of the facility, we refute it services any real need as the cliental are clearly extremely wealthy and have the means to get the care they need elsewhere.

7. Why isn’t a major upgrade of the King / Danger Street intersection being considered as part of this, the existing round about is not sufficient and with further traffic in the area this will get worse. This should be considered, along with the original intention to create more public space at this intersection.

8. There doesn’t appear to be any public benefits proposed to the neighbours of this developed proposed, rather some points on how they will manage impacts which we don’t agree with. The original masterplan had open space and public open benefit.

9. There has been a significant period of construction over the last few stages and our residents will have to again cop the pain of this.

10. Please disclose what donations have been made by the applicate to local government, state government or any of those in political standing within the Randwick Community.

Overall, it seems Motefiore’s approach has been to continue to build out in stages, and at each point add more and more density to the overall site, with the site when now viewed as a whole at considerable density / scale already. This new proposal takes this even further and with no public benefit proposed.

I object to building D having 6 storeys with a rooftop terrace at 22.8M high which is less than 50M from the Randwick Heritage conservation area. The bulk & scale of this building is overbearing on the street frontage of Dangar St. It appears to me that Montefiore has shown more consideration to residents of King St in modifying the design of Buildings E& F , when King St is not part of the Heritage conservation area. I disagree with the visual impact statement in the report. It does not have a low visual impact to Dangar St, a Heritage conservation area. If this building is allowed at 22.8M high it will have a detrimental visual impact on the aesthetics and character of our community. The height of building D needs to be scaled back, by deleting 2 storeys , & to increase setbacks from Dangar St. Montefiore need to consider the close proximity to the heritage conservation area. The second reason i object to is the inadequate underground parking . I am part of a large extended family, and they already have trouble getting a park when they come to visit. My tradespeople and friends also find it extremely difficult in locating a parking space in Dangar St. Our St will also have increased traffic, as most of the new residents & visitors will be coming & going from the Rose Bay/Dover Heights/Bondi area. This extra traffic will impact on the safety for cyclists and pedestrians , as Dangar St is a Cycle Way. In conclusion, I would hope that Montefiore , takes into consideration these issues , so that our Heritage Conservation area is maintained & not degraded.

Re: Development Application - Seniors Housing Development Proposal

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed seniors housing development plan that involves the construction of a 6-storey building fronting Dangar Street, which is located within a designated heritage conservation area. The existing buildings, including apartments and townhouses, that face this area have a maximum height of two storeys, as stipulated by the local development controls.

The central issue of our objection is the significant disparity in the proposed building's height compared to the allowable limits under the Local Environmental Plan (LEP). The LEP permits a maximum height of 9.5 meters for this site, while the proposal is seeking to erect a structure that reaches a towering height of 22.8 meters. This stark contrast would undeniably have a detrimental impact on the heritage conservation area and alter the overall character and feel of Dangar Street and its neighboring streets.

Additionally, I would like to draw attention to the nearby development at 114-123 King Street, which comprises a four-storey apartment block thoughtfully set back from the street. This approach to development demonstrates an understanding of the local context and preserves the heritage values of the area. In contrast, the current proposal, with its excessive height and insufficient setback, fails to align with the surrounding neighborhood's character and visual appeal.

The Randwick North area, especially the precinct encompassing Dangar Street, Govett Street, and Mort Street, possesses a unique and charming character. It is defined by the presence of Federation-style houses and enjoys proximity to Centennial Park, which only amplifies its heritage significance. The construction of a building of this magnitude will undoubtedly diminish the heritage value and irreplaceable charm that our neighborhood is known for.

Another critical concern is the already strained parking situation in the area. Our experience as long-term residents has shown that the existing parking issues have not been adequately addressed over the years. To compound these challenges, there is no guarantee that staff and visitors associated with the proposed development will utilize the provided carpark facilities. As a resident of more than a decade, I have personally inquired about the on-street parking situation with staff members and questioned why they do not utilize the Montefiorre grounds for parking. Unfortunately, I received no satisfactory answers, indicating a lack of willingness to alleviate the parking woes for local residents.

Furthermore, the introduction of retail spaces within a tranquil and primarily residential street would inevitably contribute to increased traffic and exacerbate the ongoing parking problems. The potential surge in vehicles associated with commercial activities on this street raises concerns about the overall safety and serenity of the neighborhood.

In conclusion, I strongly urge the State Planning to reconsider the approval of this development proposal in its current form. The significant deviations from the permitted height and the potential for a negative impact on the heritage conservation area and local residents are too substantial to overlook. Preserving the unique character and charm of Randwick North should be a priority, and this development threatens to undermine these essential qualities.

I kindly request that my objection be given the utmost consideration, and I look forward to engaging further in this matter, should it be required.

Sincerely,

Tong Seah

(1) Height of the buildings: The proposed building are too tall.

(2) Buildings are too imposing and appear very close to the street.

Both the proposed builds with its design and height will FORVEVER DESTROY the currently beautiful streetscape and feel of the neighbourhood. It is clearly not fair to the residents of the local residents that "double standards" that are in place with this project if this is passed.

(2) Parking: The current Randwick Seniors Housing with recent new buildings and housing capacity has already caused impact on Dangar and King Streets. During work hours, these streets are often fully parked up by workers (mostly) or visitors from the Montefiore Housing. This is despite the previous proposals claiming that there would be no impact on the adjacent streets and neighbourhood. This is despite the Montefiore Housing claim that workers have car parks provided within their own premises. This is untrue. The new project proposal will only exacerbate the parking issues.

I find the size of building D to be excessively imposing. While I understand Montefiore's desire to make the most of the land, they should consider the impact on the surrounding area and neighbors. The project should strongly consider reducing the height by removing the top two stories and increasing the setback on Dangar St, which is a heritage conservation area.

Montefiore seems to have taken community submissions into account for buildings E and F, which face King St. Notably, King St is not within the Heritage conservation area. It doesn't make sense to argue that the six-story building on Dangar St won't negatively affect the heritage conservation area there, as it stands at 22.8 meters and is in close proximity to Tramway Lane, another heritage conservation area. The visual impact will be significant.

As a family with three cars, it's challenging for us, as well as our visitors, family, and tradespeople, to find parking. This situation is diminishing our community's quality of life. Montefiore should increase the number of underground parking spaces beyond the minimum requirement, as it's evident that the current provision is inadequate. This will be particularly crucial since traffic on Dangar St is expected to increase significantly, and it's also a designated cycle way. The safety of cyclists and residents will undoubtedly be compromised if the issue is not addressed.

I strongly object to the construction of a six storey development adjacent to this Heritage Conservation Area. As well as the visual impact of this development, my other concern with the project relates to the provision of parking. Parking on Dangar Street is a problem, primarily because there is inadequate parking within the existing Montefiore premises. Parking is almost impossible from 7am onwards. I have a garage but if a tradesman or visitor calls, they are unable to find suitable parking. I have been told by Montefiore staff that parking is available within the premises , but staff and visitors find it more convenient to park on the street. This problem will only be compounded by this significant proposed development as obviously there is inadequate parking onsite already.

I object to building D on the bulk & scale , it need to be lower, 4 storeys instead of 6 storeys, & have provided comments

I object to this project due to the excessive height of the proposal. Being far above what is currently legislated.
Also due to increased traffic issues this will create in the area.
The proposal is not in keeping with the heritage and aesthetic values of the area.
Thank you.

For 36 years I have lived in Dangar Street Randwick, so I feel more than qualified to have a steady opinion.
Watching Montefiore grow has been interesting, and from my observations, they appear to run a professional outfit.
I do however, have two pertinent concerns.
1) As Montefiore grows, so does demand for parking.
NEVER can I, or visitors to my house, ever find a car park on the street.
Your department should take this opportunity to insist on more underground parking.
You only get one chance to install lower level parking.
2) The proposed levels of construction for Building D are too high.
Five and six levels is way above what residents have had to adhere to.
It is definitely not in keeping with the surrounding area, some of which is heritage.
Please consider these opinions when allowing construction to go ahead.

1) Concern the height of the building which is not in keeping with the character of the street especially in Dangar Street in this area. Concern there is no keeping of the heritage and residential feel of the street.
2) Concern parking spaces/congestion and lack of parking in same street, since new buildings will have over 100 residents and staff working for the facilities.
3) would like the building to build and step back more with the highest part in the centre of the property to minimise the impact to the feel of street and restricting sunlight to nighbouring houses.
4) Noises from staff coming in and out during their shift times as this is a 24/7 facility
5) There are very often false fire alarms go off, and happens very regularly. The noise of Fire engines and constant alarms which result as noise pollution in the street.

To Whom It May Concern.
I wish to object to the bulk & scale of the proposed building in the new Montefiore development.
The LEP for this site (which is on the edge of a heritage area) is 9.5M and a state bonus of up to 13.3m is allowed. This application
goes way above that height adding an extra 2 storeys with a rooftop terrace at the height of 22.8m.
This will mean that there will be a detrimental impact on the character of the neighbourhood and unsightly sight for those of us that are unfortunate enough to live opposite.
They seem to be more interested in enhancing the internal areas for the people living there than caring about the neighbours.
The fact that they have bypassed Randwick Council (very underhand because they know that their plan is probably not going to get through given the sheer size) and gone straight to the Department of Planning and Environment (an oxymoron as you are known to favour developments at any cost) says it all.
The traffic for this whole Montefiore site is immense as it is and the parking they are providing will probably not suffice given the fact that some retirees have two cars and there is an enormous amount of staff working there, some of whom drive to work. We do not want timed parking in this area to aid this problem.
There is also a lot of noise that I can hear mainly at night, from the whole outfit - they do fix anything noisy if I ask them but they recently installed some new kitchen exhaust system I think that I can hear blowing at night which can be annoying. ( I do not want to have to close my windows at night).
I think us residents need to be taken notice of re this submission, it needs to be lowered, also would like to see some trees planted on the Dangar Street side of their property not relying on the street trees for cover as they are Manchurian Pears and are deciduous (lose their leaves) so we would be looking at a massive blot on the landscape.

Yours Faithfully,
Alexandra Gray

We object to the current proposal for the new Building D at Montefiore as we feel the 6-storey building is far too high for the area. This building should not have more than a 2-storey height at the Dangar Street frontage. Ideally the building needs setbacks to be increased so the highest part of the building is in the centre of the site to minimise the visual impact on Dangar Street & the neighbourhood as well as minimise the restriction of sunlight to the neighbouring properties.
We also feel more parking spaces are needed on site as visitors, family, residents & tradespeople already have difficulty finding parking spaces in our streets.
Allowing a 6-storey development within the visual proximity of a heritage conservation area will also have a detrimental visual impact on the character of the neighbourhood & it's paramount we maintain the historical & aesthetic value of our neighbourhood.

The proposed 6-storey high building is fronting Dangar Street, neighbouring and adjacent to a conservation area that will be impacted visually. This 6-storey building needs setbacks to be increased and not to have more than a 2-storey height at the Danger Street frontage with further height only allowed as you step back into the centre of the large site.
More parking spaces are needed on site, as visitors, family, residents and tradespeople already cannot find parking spaces in Danger street. Many of these residents will have 2 cars (as they are independent living residents) and there will be extra staff that take up street parking.
The area is adjacent to the Heritage Conservation area in Randwick North, which is subject to stringent rules governing residential construction. Allowing a 6-story development within the visible proximity of the heritage conservation area would have a detrimental visible impact on the character of the neighbourhood. Preservation of heritage-listed areas and their visual surroundings is paramount to maintaining the historical and aesthetic value of Randwick North.

I object to the project in its current form for the following reasons:
1) The proposal has been allowed to bypass Randwick Council (who I understand will be lodging their own concerns/objections)
2) The height of the project is 22.8m which is significantly above what the current height limit allowed is
3) There should be a maximum 2 storey height level at Dangar Street frontage, with further height only allowed as you step back towards the centre of the site. If this is not the case it will dramatically impact the character of the neighbourhood.
4) The site requires more on-site parking. Visitors, family, residents, staff and tradespeople already find it difficult to obtain parking.

Regards,
Ben

- height of building is too high (6 stories) and placement is too close to the street
- not enough parking
- keep the building back with the highest part in the centre of the property to minimize impact on the streetscape and not restricting sunlight to adjoining and nearby properties
- endeavour to keep the heritage and feel of the street.
Thank you - David Stewart

Dear Sir/Madam,

I live directly across the road from the proposed development at 13/69-87 Dangar Street and I would argue that my home is one of the most severely impacted by this proposal in terms of loss of privacy.
The application directly refers to my home but only in the context of loss of view, which I take no major issue with. The application in no way considered my loss of privacy. This is inconsistent with the Objectives of Clause 4.3 of the RLEP 2012 and I do not believe that the Applicant has properly considered this.
While I am generally accepting of the fact that additional seniors housing is in the best interest of the community and I would actively support a more reasonable proposal, I take objection to the continual requests for additional height of this building far in excess of the LEP and now even in excess of the 13.3m SEPP bonus. The height of the proposed development (22.8m) projects above the maximum permitted building height by 9.5m, which equates to 71.43% of the standard to be varied.
Why do we even have planning laws when a developer can simply hire expensive consultants and obtain legal advice saying that these laws should not apply to them because it hurts their “business case”? An interesting argument for a not for profit organization that is also exempt from developer contributions.
Let us be clear that the additional top floor which pushes the height of this project well above even the SEPP bonus is for 2 luxury penthouse apartments. Not high care or dementia care rooms.
Even though this top floor is further set back from the levels below and may not impact visually from street level, this top floor will directly overlook my bedrooms and terrace. No form of privacy screening has been contemplated for this level. I object to the fact that I will have a significant loss of privacy in my bedroom.
I would be happy to be engaged by the Applicant to constructively discuss measures that would mitigate my loss of privacy if they were willing.
I note that many of the photo montages and artist impressions are misleading with respect to the existing tree canopy along Dangar Street. The images make the trees appear far taller, denser, and healthier than they are in reality. This has the effect of visually reducing the bulk of the proposed building in a way that simply doesn’t reflect how it will actually look.
The landscape plan is confusing and vague with respect to the Dangar Street frontage. It refers to canopy trees but only vaguely. The largest trees I can see mentioned are 5m tall Lilly Pillies which will not provide adequate screening.
It seems to indicate that the existing pear trees along the footpath have a height of 16m when in reality they are closer to 6m and have a sparse canopy which doesn’t provide a consistent screen. Furthermore, they are deciduous and provide no visual screening during the winter months.
I would argue that the landscaping plan requires a more detailed inclusion or large evergreen trees to compensate for the small, deciduous pears along the footpath.
As it stands, the proposed tree plantings along Dangar Street will not help to minimize the bulk of the building.

In Summary:
• The height of the proposed Building D is simply excessive and should be reduced by one level. This would still be far in excess of even the 13.5m SEPP bonus.

• Notwithstanding the proposed setback of the top floor, additional privacy screening measures should be incorporated to minimize privacy loss to properties in Dangar Steet.

• A taller, denser, evergreen tree selection should be incorporated in to the Dangar Street frontage to actually help minimize the visual bulk of the building as well as increase privacy.

• The North East corner of building D could be visually softened by the inclusion of more green planters on the upper level balconies. This would help to reduce the visual bulk of the building from the street and from residences on Dangar Street. At the moment, it appears as a solid bulk of white metal screening with high reflectivity.

Kind Regards,

Anthony Nemeth
13/69-87 Dangar Street
Randwick

As a resident of Randwick North, I write with objection to the proposal for 36 Dangar Street Randwick Seniors Housing. Reasons for objection: Bulk & scale of 37 units & 7 residential care facility rooms for this new building  D, that is a 6-storey high building fronting Dangar St... neighbouring and adjacent to a conservation area that will be impacted visually. This 6-storey building needs setbacks to be increased and not to have more than a 2-storey height at the Dangar Street frontage with further height only allowed as you step back into the centre of the large site.   

More parking spaces are needed on site, as visitors, family, residents & tradespeople already cannot find parking spaces in our streets. Many of these residents will have 2 cars (as they are independent living residents) and there will be extra staff that take up street parking.

Why has this proposal has been allowed to bypass Randwick Council & go straight to Dept of Planning & Environment? The LEP height for this site is 9.5 M, this application goes way above, adding an extra 2 storey with a rooftop terrace at the height of 22.8 M

The area in question is adjacent to the Heritage Conservation Area in Randwick North, which is subject to stringent rules governing residential construction. Allowing a six-story development within the visual proximity of the heritage conservation area would have a detrimental visual impact on the character of the neighbourhood. Preservation of heritage-listed areas and their visual surroundings is paramount to maintaining the historical and aesthetic value of Randwick North. 

Please reject this submission.

I live in the town houses directly across from the residential complex. I do not object to an expansion on the building, but I do object to the height that they have proposed and the position on the property that they are intending to build, which is extremely close to the street front.

Dangar Street is a quiet residential street. The residential home currently sits very well within the setting as it is setback from the street front, the buildings closest to the street are. maximum of two stories high, and the buildings that are higher are setback in the center of the complex. However, the building does generate a tremendous amount of traffic and parking issues on the street.

The building works proposed would significantly alter the character of the street, the residential feel of the area, the amount of traffic coming through the area, and would significantly impact the amount of light to our block of 24 town houses.

In addition, the amount of parking they have proposed would not be sufficient. At the moment, parking during the week is very hard. Our building has a visitor’s car park which from time to time is used by visitors to the residential facility, making parking even more difficult.

I do not believe that their proposed Works have maintained the character of the street, or the nature of the heritage area. The building will dominate the street scape, change the residential feel to an urban feel, significantly block out light from neighboring residences, and generally stick out like a sore thumb. Significant changes to the plan, including maintaining a 2 story height maximum for the building on the Dangar Street front, and higher buildings allowed only as you step back into the center of the property. In addition, more parking must be supplied to support the residents, their visitors, and other supporting personnel of the center such as cleaners, doctors, etc.

Thank you.

This is a residential area all houses along King st are one or two storey high
Local parking will be effected
More noise and movement
the nursing home should not be allowed to go higher then the houses within the street
Property value will drop due to a large building across the road
On Wednesday nights/ meeting nights at the Burger Centre- cars illegally parked, when exiting the building no consideration to locals in this area (very loud).
More people will be coming and going.
Nursing home parking is never used, staff and subcontractors park on street. This will only get worse.
Emergency vehicles will only get worse.
This was a residential area long before the Nursing home bought the land
Unfair to the locals that have been here for so long