Comments made here were sent to Bayside Council. Add your own comment.
We understand that this bowling club has been around for years, this was a bowling club with limited traffic and late night trading. Considering the landscape has changed we need to be mindful a club in the middle of Residential area is this right. Come on bay side consider the neighbours, cars leaving, music etc...
Who has been given the lease on this property?
Was given to a Greek association and they never did anything except let it go to rack and ruin.
All for doing it up and re opening, but trading and noise late at night will be detrimental to locals.
Locals need to also realise that covid kept many clubs quiet and they are slowly reopening, so cannot say they dont want a club,as its been a club site for a very long time, as long as ts not a raging loud venue it should fit in nicely with the local environment
The hours of operation and noise management are a key problem for this application as the site is surrounded by a quiet residential area.
The area is quiet and lot of families live around the club. the hours of operation and the construction of a car park will have a detrimental and negative effect to our beautiful suburb
Less operational hours and a more environmentally designed landscape will make the club a great facility for locals and not only
# Council or more importantly COUNCILLORs have been extending the period for AHEPA to meet lease conditions even though they have had 6 YEARS. WHY
# At council meeting 11 November 2020 Council staff recommended putting the site up for retender . COUNSILLORS VOTED AGAINT THIS MOTION but are now allowing allowing them 20 days more days to lodge a BOND of $1.6million . WHEN WILL THIS CEASE.
# Lease Conditions were set including paying rent arrears. These arrears have been only recently been paid. Rent arrears were $58K FOR two and a half years. This is well below the commercial market rates. WHY DID COUNCIL APPROVE THE TENDER IN THE FIRST PLACE
# Council Meeting 23 Feb 2022 disclosed that AHEPA on a corporate score care received a 2 out of 10 for it financial position in 2016 when it lodged its tender . It is now under administration and has been tired up in lengthy and costly legal battles WHY DID COUNCIL APPROVE THE TENDER AND COUNCILLORS SUPPORTED EXTENTIONS.
# AHEPA is also to lodge a bank guarantee Bond of approx $1.6 million. This has not been met .This figure is based on Applicants estimate of work to be done. COUNCILS OWN records show that building cost are estimated at closer to $3.2 million.
WHY isn't council insisting on a BOND OF $3.2 Mill. WILL RATEPAYERS BE LEFT TO FOOT THE BILL TO COMPLETE THE REFURBISHMENT OF PREMISES THAT WILL RETURN BELOW MARKET RATES .
#Council have already reclassified the site on one occasion (against residents wishes) to allow applicant to develop the site as they so wish. This was paid for by ratepayers. WHY
Current DA will require the land AGAIN to be reclassified . Again at the cost to ratepayers. WHY
Council records show that Three bridges was one of the preferred tenderers .WAS tender offering a rental income more commercial than that of AHEPA. If so why did COUNCIL approve AHEPAs lease or allowed the issue to drag on for so long.
# It would seem that this community group are receiving PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT AT THE EXPENSE OF RESIDENTS RATEPAYERS AND OTHER COMMUNITY GROUPS - WHY
# Independent Town Planners Report from previously lodged DA is not easily available for residents to see. The previous report addresses real issues in relation to traffic and noise which have not been addressed in this DA.
# Now council are saying they may not need to seek a independent planners report. WHY
I have serious concerns about the development AND the entire process of events.
The area is quiet and lot of families live around the club. the hours of operation and the construction of a car park will have a detrimental and negative effect to our beautiful suburb
Less operational hours and a more environmentally designed landscape will make the club a great facility for locals and not only
This site needs a complete overhaul to once again become a community facility. As a local resident, I fully support this Development Application. It is designed to re-invigorate the Bexley Bowling Club as a community facility. The Club facilities were first built in 1950, and operated continuously until a short time ago. The surrounding area has a serious lack of community facilities, while being home to three public schools and two secondary schools, with thousands of students and their families. I sincerely hope the Development Application is approved in due course and the project moves forward promptly.
It is easy for local residents whose amenity will not be effected and are also committee members of the Greek applicant to support the DA. There will be no negative impacts on their amenity or property prices and their organisation stands to profit at the expense of the residents living around the site.
The local area is not lacking in community facilities. Bexley Pub, Kingsgrove RSL, Clunes Centre, Bexley Golf course (to name a few) are all local community facilities that can cater for functions etc and are very inclusive.
I know that the premises were built in the 1950's but it was built to cater for bowlers and their families and the suggestion made by the resident who is also a member of the applicant that it will cater for the younger population adds to my concern of noise traffic and loss of amenity. The building has not been used anywhere near the hours proposed in the DA for well over 25 years. I strongly oppose the approval of the DA.
To have a related party posting here as a "local resident" and not declaring their own interest, is sneaky to say the least.
Declaration: I am in Bexley South but I can see this is a residential area. A bowling club has been allowed to exist perhaps because it has been quiet all these years. Does not mean that it should, in the proposed new form.
My family has lived in Laycock Street for 43 Years, 3 generations, a few doors from the proposed development. I am totally opposed to this proposal as it stands. If the councils independent planner, an expert, has been ignored for questioning the NOISE that will be generated, the TRAFFIC, and the IMPACT on our community .... who is making these decisions? .... supposedly for the benefit of our community.
We live in a special community here, a family friendly community that co-existed with the Bowling Club for decades. This proposal has function center hours ... 1.00am??? Outdoor seating on Laycock Street side??? We have plenty of community clubs close by, Kingsgrove RSL, Kingsgrove Pub, Bexley North Pub, Bexley Golf club, Clune Center, and Morgan Street Community Center. This proposal needs to be stopped and put into line with how the original Bowling Club operated, in harmony with the locals.
How is OUR council looking after the best interests of its rate payers? Please explain.
The community needs to be consulted.
My family has lived in Laycock Street for 43 Years, 3 generations, a few doors from the proposed development. I am totally opposed to this proposal as it stands. If the councils independent planner, an expert, has been ignored for questioning the NOISE that will be generated, the TRAFFIC, and the IMPACT on our community .... who is making these decisions? .... supposedly for the benefit of our community.
We live in a special community here, a family friendly community that co-existed with the Bowling Club for decades. This proposal has function center hours ... 1.00am??? Outdoor seating on Laycock Street side??? We have plenty of community clubs close by, Kingsgrove RSL, Kingsgrove Pub, Bexley North Pub, Bexley Golf club, Clune Center, and Morgan Street Community Center. This proposal needs to be stopped and put into line with how the original Bowling Club operated, in harmony with the locals.
How is OUR council looking after the best interests of its rate payers? Please explain.
The community needs to be consulted.
A club open until 1am snack in the middle of a quiet residential area is absurd, I'd suggest Dr Panayiotis Diamadis comment is self-interested as he is a past president of AHEPA. AHEPA have the lease and have let the facilities degrade significantly. Why was this club leased to an organisation that clearly lacks the skills to run a facility? And showing this lack of competence are now being given the opportunity to
As a local resident I'm strongly against this. We have other entertainment facilities in the suburb. My suggestion is to make it into a community garden like in Hurstville so that the local community can REALLY benefit...
This is what we should be doing with this site - https://www.facebook.com/hurstvillecommunitygarden/posts/1041818013039852
The application in its current form is NOT suitable for this site.
This proposal is almost identical to the previous DA that was refused. It does not consider any of the concerns raised in the numerous public submissions received against the development.
The approval of this DA is clearly NOT in the public interest as it fails to satisfy numerous key objectives of the LEP and DCP. Where a written request has been given by the applicant to vary a control prescribed in the local planning instruments, they have failed to demonstrate why it is unreasonable or unnecessary to enforce compliance or why, on environmental planning grounds, the variation should be supported. Other fundamental compliance issues are not addressed at all.
This proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the R2 low density zoning. It clearly does not have a ‘minimal’ impact on the character and amenity of the area and will result in an unacceptable loss of acoustic privacy for neighbours and unnecessary removal of street trees and site vegetation.
The cumulative impact of non-compliance with numerous key objectives of the LEP and DCP will result in unsatisfactory impacts on the natural and built environment and residents.
I urge the Planning Officer and the panel to protect the public interest by upholding the objectives of the local planning instruments and REFUSE this application.
As a local resident, I fully support this Development Application to re-build the Bexley Bowling Club as a community facility. This site needs a complete overhaul to once again become usable. Pubs and RSL Clubs are not community facilities - they are private, for profit, businesses. The proposed opening hours are the same as the Bexley Bowling and Community Club operated under for decades. The height and footprint of the current building are being preserved. The open spaces will remain open spaces. A bowling green will be restored, the only lawn bowls green in the district. On-site parking will keep cars off Laycock and Oliver Streets. Overall, I fully support an application to convert this derelict site which is a drain on the resources of Bayside Council, resources we, the residents, provide through our rates.
It is easy for local residents that can not see the site on a day to day basis from their residences, will not be effected from any noise from the proposed site or lives in a street that will not have increased traffic pass through it to get to the site to speak in favour of the DA.
The site was being used until AHEPA were awarded the tender. Public records show that they were instrumental in having the other parties cease using the site as far back as 2016. The site was left abandoned by AHEPA .
Bexley RSL, Kingsgrove RSL and all RSLs in fact are not for profit organisations and are required to put their monies back into the local community.
Car parking areas and bowling greens to be both described as open spaces is deceptive. One and a half of the existing greens are proposed to be changed to car parking areas.
The club NEVER had the operating hours proposed in the submission - this can be verified by speaking with to any local that has lived near the site.
As a ratepayer I would not like to see council community property be put in the hands of an organisation that did not pay its rent for two and a half years until it was forced to in order to allow the DA to be submitted.
The DA will have a negative impact by way of increased traffic, considerable more noise and it will disturb the amenity of our neighbourhood at the expense of residents.
Bayside Council needs to be investigated for any close association with AHEPA. Councillors that have any form of affiliation with AHEPA must be shown as having a conflict of interest & withdraw their vote.
The entry & exit of cars in Edward Street is extremely dangerous, vehicles frequently speed through the roundabout at the intersection of Edward Street & Oliver Street heading towards Kingsgrove Road. How many car accidents will occur caused by drivers (including over the limit drivers) exiting the car park?
The planting of non-native plants (olive trees & cypress) in favour of native trees is a joke; if you are greening an area native trees must planted to support the native wildlife e.g. birds, lizards, etc. Also concrete & tar slabs are not in line with greening an area.
I have been in this area for fifty plus years; the operating hours (Sunday to Thursday 9am to 11pm and Friday to Saturday 9am to 1am) are ludicrous. The amount of noise generated by both humans & motor vehicles leaving the premises will be a challenge for all residents living in close proximity to the location.
I am strongly against this DA being approved.
I have had enough of Bayside Council turning our suburb into a concrete jungle.
I am against this DA, residents should not have to tolerate increased traffic and loud music up to 1am. Edward Street should not be turned into a major traffic area.
If AHEPA are allowed to sell alcohol, how many drivers will be exiting the premises intoxicated?
AHEPA, why do we need another club at Bexley North when there is already one at Rockdale?
There is the need to clarify a few myths and deal with some deliberate disinformation. To my knowledge, the following statements are facts:
1. May 2016 AHEPA NSW INC awarded the tender for the operation of the Bexley Bowling Club by Rockdale Council.
2. September 2016 Rockdale and Botany Bay Councils forcibly merged. Administrator appointed. The project stalled until the election of a new Bayside Council in September 2017. More than one year's delay beyond AHEPA's control.
3. AHEPA NSW INC sought an extended lease of 21 years to justify the large financial investment. The Minister for Local Government did not sign the approval until March 2018. Another delay beyond AHEPA's control.
4. The membership of AHEPA NSW INC has voted in support of the Bexley Bowling Club project on four occasions by 80 per cent or more. The last time was in October last year.
5. An Amended DA was submitted to Council. The town planner appointed by Council took more than one year before submitting her report. Another delay beyond AHEPA's control.
6. March 2020. Covid-19 related lockdowns began. These effectively stopped AHEPA NSW INC activities and seriously impacted revenues. Another delay beyond AHEPA's control.
7. AHEPA NSW INC was in voluntary administration between September and December 2020. The Association has been running its own affairs since December 2020.
8. Sept 2020. AHEPA NSW INC withdrew the Amended DA.
9. The Agreement for Licence and Lease signed by Bayside Council and AHEPA NSW INC.
10. As a gesture of goodwill, AHEPA NSW INC paid 2 1/2 years of rent for the Bexley Bowling Club despite not having control of the site.
11. February 2022. AHEPA NSW INC submitted a new DA, essentially a renovation of the existing site with all traffic being directed to Edward Street, facing the park, away from residences on Laycock and Oliver Streets.
10. None of the past or current Councillors who have supported the project are members of the Order of AHEPA NSW INC.
All these are public knowledge, presented here to clarify matters for local residents and other interested persons.
Ahepa have been embroiled in a number of internal legal battles and had come under financial pressure.
https://infoweb.bayside.nsw.gov.au/Open/2020/11/CO_11112020_AGN_3248_AT.PDF
Council records 11 November 2020 show report (see council file F19/901) where council staff recommended Termination of agreement with AHEPA and seeking new tenders for the site. This was voted against by a number of councillors who have allowed the matter to continue . Seven months later July 2021 AHEPA were still in legal dispute.
As long time residents of St Kilda Street Bexley North we agree with Dr Panayotios Diamadis comments in regard to the Approval of the Redevelopment of Bexley Bowling Club.
As residents of Oliver St, we are deeply concerned about this development. The hours of operation and the traffic congestion in the surrounding streets will have a terrible impact. We are against this proposal!!!
Considering this bowling club has not operated successfully for over 20 years. We need to consider the landscape changing. Traffic on either end of Edward Street are narrow this does it make sense to have this club approved?
As a resident of Oliver street I strongly oppose to this development The creation of parking on both the lawns will destroy the landscape and create massive traffic issues
Also the operational times of the club in a family and quiet area will cause problems
Keep our neighbourhood green and family / community friendly
The amended plans fail to address the major issues raised by residents - increased traffic volumes, increased noise, loss of off-street parking and loss of green space. A club with a capacity of 300 patrons, operating until 11pm Sun - Thur and 1am on Fridays and Saturdays is entirely inappropriate on this site.
Amended plans do not address issues of increased noise and traffic problems issues that will arise if this DA is approved.
issues raised in my previous letter of objection have not been adequately addressed.
Outdoor Terrance and seating can hold considerably more than the numbers mentioned in the submission and will contribute to the unacceptable noise levels.
Acoustics report shows a malfunction in equipment used to gauge noise levels . The acoustics report should not be accepted.
Acoustic reports used basis of noise from only 125 patrons. Assumption of 1 person taking and 1 listening is unrealistic given that Ahepas record plan to use the site as a function centre to attract Greek youth back into its community.
Assumption than patrons will reduce from 250 to 100 at midnight is unrealistic and unmanageable particularly given that the site will be used for functions.
Cost to develop the site is grossly underestimated given issues with lengthy delays and increasing cost of building materials.
This development will adversely impact the local residents and the amenity of the area .
The following is of serious concern with regard to this proposal:
- in 2018 Bayside Council gave conditional approval for the knock down-rebuild after AHEPA submitted a structural engineer’s report advising the original plan to extend and refurbish the old building was not viable. Now in 2022 it appears that extend and refurbish is viable? What changed?
- AHEPA have been in administration, not paid rent and are proposing a development that is at odds with their own mission statement. Under AHEPA the community has lost access to the Bowling club and the site is now in disrepair. However, Bayside council still allows AHEPA to maintain the lease even though their own staff have recommended a retender.
- The majority of the local community is against the development and want the site developed in a way that focuses on community and recreation.
- The area is already well serviced with clubs.
- The opening hours are clearly inappropriate for where the club is situated.
- The local community will be adversely affected by increased traffic and noise.
I have lived in Laycock St for 15 years, imagine a club next to your house with 300 people (intoxicated most likely) operating until 1am, it is a nightmare!
The council is going to hold an online meeting regarding the development at 72 Laycock St Bexley North on Tuesday 9/5/2023 at 6PM.
You must register before 5pm Friday 5/5/2023 in order to speak at the meeting.
Use the below link to register:
https://www.bayside.nsw.gov.au/form/request-to-speak
Ref: DA-2022/48
When registering to speak in the council meeting on 9th May 2023 at 6pm, choose " Bayside Planning Panel Meeting"
Use the below link to register:
