120 Kingsland Rd Nth, Bexley North NSW 2207

DA-2024-93
I am writing in relation to the DA for 120 Kingsland Road North, Bexley North NSW 2207. I object to the development for 2 reasons as follows:
1. My property backs onto the grassed oval. The oval has an elevation of at least 3 meters in height above my land. If a property were to be built without the land being levelled to the same level of all the properties on Benjamin St, we would lose all privacy.
2. My understanding is 40 separate homes are to be built. This would equate to a minimum of 40 cars being added to the chaos of what is the Bexley North Public School pick-up and drop-off nightmare on Kingsland Rd. This is not feasible without a better traffic management plan.

DA-2024-93
I am writing in relation to the DA for 120 Kingsland Road North, Bexley North NSW 2207. I object to the development for 2 reasons as follows:
1. My property backs onto the grassed oval. The oval has an elevation of at least 3 meters in height above my land. If a property were to be built without the land being levelled to the same level of all the properties on Benjamin St, we would lose all privacy.
2. My understanding is 40 separate homes are to be built. This would equate to a minimum of 40 cars being added to the chaos of what is the Bexley North Public School pick-up and drop-off nightmare on Kingsland Rd. This is not feasible without a better traffic management plan.

So the heritage buildings are retained but the beautiful established tress around it will be destroyed. Sydney screams for a green canopy & the council puffs up its chest about its green credentials yet 52 no doubt mature trees are going to be removed for this development. And don't give me housing crisis and a 'mix of affordable BS , this will be another overpriced rubbish development from the usual suspects to cram more people into unsuitable locations, prove me wrong

This is a submission in relation to DA-2024/93 on behalf of the Wolli Creek Preservation Society.

Objection to proposed development at 120 Kingsland Road North, Bexley North

We have noted resident objections relating to increased traffic and loss of privacy, and add our own objections to the proposed ‘landscaping’ plans. These pay no attention to the local vegetation as found in Stotts Reserve and the Bardwell Valley bushland, both close by. The plant choice also includes a number of non-local species known to be invaders of local bushland.

But we are concerned with much wider objections: that this is overdevelopment and misses a major opportunity to improve green corridor linkages and provide additional accessible open space and canopy cover for the Bayside LGA . Bayside has considerably less of both than other Sydney urban areas, including nearby ones, in relation to population.

Overdevelopment
The subdivision identifies 40 lots, but also earmarks a number of them as dual occupancies, bringing the total prospective households to 49. This implies a major increase in population, putting additional stress on ageing water and sewerage services, energy supply, transport services and traffic congestion.

Apart from the heritage buildings to be protected, the only open space provided for is the diminutive Lot 139 (600 sq m), which is probably only exempted from building because it is required to serve as a water retention basin. This is derisory, and the development should be required to provide for an open space to population ratio that, at the very least, is better than the current level that holds across the LGA as a whole.

The loss of over 50 mature trees will also reduce canopy shade, replacing it with roofs, and replace large areas of soft water-absorbent land with paved roads, footpaths and driveways. All of this will add to the urban heat island effect and increase rapid run-off and the resulting flash flooding. Both impacts will be exacerbated by the climate changes we are already seeing.

Major opportunity
The Premier, at a media conference at Turrella Reserve, just 2km away, on March 8, 2024, said: “If we’re going to build houses, particularly closer to the CBD, we need to preserve and protect as much green space as we possibly can.” “…places for people to recreate, spend time with their friends, play sport, walk in the nature, will be crucial if we’re going to achieve our dreams of having density done well in metropolitan Sydney. We can’t just build houses; we’ve gotta build world class beautiful parks, and that means preserving every bit of green space that we can possibly get our hands on.  We see the housing agenda and the green space agenda working together. And that’s going to be part and parcel of the government’s strategy in the years ahead…” (emphasis added).

The proposed development certainly sees more housing built close to the CBD, but it is not densification done well and ignores the need for additional open space to go with increased population; in fact it sharply reduces it by building on it and removing over 50 mature trees.

The Wolli Creek Preservation Society urges Council to reject the subdivision proposal in its present form and suggests the following alternative vision. This takes the Premier’s commitment to preserving existing green space seriously and builds on concepts developed in the Metropolitan Greenspace Program, the Sydney Green Grid, and the green corridor plans developed by Councils with State grant funds.

Bayside Council’s own corridor plan for the Bardwell Valley Parklands and Wolli Creek Corridor shows Stotts Reserve and the bushland of the Bardwell Valley, both close to this development and relied upon by the applicant to provide open space for the resulting increased population. What it does not do is recognise that those two corridors could be linked by way of the Salvation Army site and the school grounds of Bexley North Public School, both with significant open space and able to support additional vegetation to provide a biodiversity corridor.

In the attached diagram, the open space in the subject site is excised from the redevelopment and made into a public reserve with two access points, from Barnsbury Grove and Kingsland Road. Increased housing density in the area can still be achieved on the remaining parts of the site, with the loss of significantly fewer trees. There is scope for the trees that are removed to be replaced by additional ones (of local provenance!) within the reserve, although full replacement will be long delayed while they reach maturity themselves.

This alternative proposal would also address the concerns of Benjamin Street residents about privacy and somewhat alleviate the traffic concerns of others.

The Salvation Army might well see this handover of land for a public reserve as appropriate recognition of the land having been exempt from various forms of taxation over the years that they have owned the site. Certainly, many in the community would feel that.

Peeter Stevens
Vice-President
for the Society 17 May 2024

As a longtime resident of Bardwell Park and having had our 3 children and now grandchildren attend Bexley North Public School, I have a strong connection to the area. I am also a member of WCPS and have supported the previous efforts to save the Wolli Creek Valley from the then proposed surface roads which would have destroyed and depleted the now highly regarded and precious natural resource and green space.

I strongly support the submission by WCPS and would add the following.

Increased housing sited close to public transport hubs is a positive planning strategy however this must be achieved without degradation of the green footprint and natural resources in the development area.

I would like to see the existing green space of the oval at Bexley North PS linked with the green space of the proposed development, perhaps as a natural corridor linking Stotts Reserve with the green space adjacent to the Bardwell Valley Reserve backing onto the golf course just across from the current public school’s oval. This could also be used by the school and other conservation groups as an environmental teaching resource in the future. There could possibly be a walking path linking the green areas mentioned.

The development plan, as it stands, indicates that the ‘heat island’ effect will be increased. With a greater number of residents with cars there will be increased traffic pressures around an area that already has demands, particularly during school times.

I am also concerned at the removal of mature trees for this development even though there are some replacement plantings which will take a lot of time to reach the same level of maturity.

The proposed water retention area seems to be a green space significantly less than the open green space of the Salvation Army area. Reduction of these areas combined with higher heat island effects seems to increase the environmental impact of this development.

I would suggest that the development be less ambitious with the overall number of possible residences reduced in favour of a more thoughtful, forward-thinking, informed and progressive approach using the proposed development’s proximity to significant existing green resources namely Stotts and Bardwell Valley Reserves.