All recent comments on applications from Bayside Council, NSW

Has consent lapsed for DA-2016/237?
Determined: 28/11/2017 Approved by Council.

I object to the proposal for the following reasons:

1. There is already significant shortfall of retail and open space within the local community with a shortfall in the order of 5 full line supermarkets. Other residential developments are adding to demand for retail (e.g. supermarkets and convenience based retail) and open space but not providing any additional retail or open space. Existing open space within the immediate surrounding area is of low quality and already in shortfall given current residential population (there is only one park in a 300 radius from the site -- Wooroona Reserve). The nearby project at 161 Princes Highway Arncliffe does not provide sufficient retail floorspace to alleviate retail shortfall in the local area.

The proposal will add to demand for retail and open space but is not providing an additional retail or open space, as such it will further worsen these shortfalls. Reports accompanying the proposal do not consider impacts to the local community as a result of exacerbating these shortfalls. There needs to be a retail impact assessment and open space impact assessment to understand how much worse these shortfalls will become.

2. Unable to assess shadow impacts to common recreation areas for 118 Princes Highway Arncliffe. In particular barbeque areas and common ground floor area which are used through the day particularly in the mornings. Shadow diagrams need to be clearly presented and labelled to understand impacts to this adjoining property.

3. Reports don't consider the the cumulative traffic impacts of other projects along Duncan St and Charles St. Vehicle traffic is already impacted by road closures and one-way traffic (e.g. trucks and work vehicles double parking, traffic being redirected or road being temporary one-way during slab concrete pouring) by these construction sites. Additional construction on these local roads would further exacerbate the impact to vehicle movement during construction hours.

4. Reports accompanying the proposal don't consider traffic impacts at intersection at Wickham St and Charles St. It is already difficult trying to get in and out of Charles St during peak hour. Additional traffic generated by the proposal would extend wait times and increase congestion. This intersection either needs to be upgraded with traffic lights to better manage traffic flows, otherwise the proposal will significantly impact vehicle flow for existing residents using this intersection.

5. Proposal will add additional demand for peak hour train services at Arncliffe station which is already over capacity during peak hours -- i.e. some people are unable to board train during peak hour due to overcrowding. This is worsened when peak hour services are impacted (train cancelled or delayed). The T4 Illawarra line has been unable to meet a performance target of 92% during peak services for the last three years.

6. Further worsen local traffic and demand for on street parking. There is limited to no on street parking and the proposal will add additional demand for street parking. As a result the below quote from the traffic and parking assessment is incorrect (as would be evident if a site visit were conducted as part of the background work):

"Small service vehicles (service personnel etc) will be able to use the visitor spaces
while any occasional large service/delivery vehicles will be reliant on the available onstreet parking as is normal for small residential apartment buildings of this nature."

Unless the above factors can be considered the proposal will have a negative impact on existing residents and visitors to the local area.

Just make sure there's heaps underground parking, streetside parking can often be unavailable. Its also got regular traffic at commuter times. And when its bin night, don't expect to get street parking at all. It is a street that is already filled with multiple townhouse blocks.

This development has no consideration for the street. This has to be one of the last streets in the area to have no duplex and sadly not for longer.

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.

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

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

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.

Dear Bayside

I have taken a look at the revised DA sent to me by my neighbour. I am at no.3 10-12 The Glen Road and my property is directly across from no.8's rear.

Having read the DA I have some concerns about the way it is phrased. Throughout the DA there are references to "the Rear" of the property as if it indicated that it was away from the main traffic or other properties. The property is on a corner with the side and rear of it facing 4 different properties all within the strata of 10-12 The Glen Road.

From my front door there is a direct line of sight into the rear of the property and any noise from that property goes directly into my house. This has previously impacted on me, so that a water pump that used to be used in the rear of the property echoed loudly into my bedroom throughout the night, so loud it kept me awake. I can provide a photo of the view if that is helpful? If a photo is not helpful I would recommend someone takes a visual of the view, the proximity and the noise implications. There is little to no buffer between the rear of no. 8 and my property.

The original location of the swimming pool was contained behind a fence and foliage. This change is a very different prospect.

On the structural front, I do not have the requisite skills and knowledge. However the neighbour at no.4 10-12 The Glen Road said there are implications on drainage and general water ingress. I'm afraid I have no idea the details and that is something that ought to be considered to the extent required.

I am therefore highly concerned about the change of location of the swimming pool and would respectfully request that the application is denied.

I look forward to hearing views on my submission.

Yet another old house with history and character is being stripped of all its character.
Only 2 doors down from the historic Lydham hall
Council doesn't care,neither does the state government.
Private certifiers should be ashamed of themselves approving these plans.
BUT like everything it's all about money.

This planning application looks similar if not the same as was submitted before and not given the ok by council. Only no mention on this of the 10metre walkway between the build from Princes highway. Also height was 8 levels because aircraft safety ect and car park was only 2 levels allowed not 3 as asked for again. Know we want area to be built up but safety has to be looked at and convenience of walkway given consideration Thank you Lesley CINI

This doesn’t bother anyone. All neighbours (bar 1) are fine with this addition.

10/03/2024

REF: DA-2022/421 – PAN-293410 – 1557 BOTANY ROAD, BOTANY 2019

STATEMENT FROM PAULA SVOBODA – OWNER - (SP98460) UNIT 11 1559-1563, BOTANY ROAD, BOTANY 2019

Dear Bayside Local Planning Panel,
Since the original Environmental Impact Statement (by Planning Ingenuity P/L), all I have observed on the Council website is a further set of Architectural diagrams without any specific details to such a significant change to the overall design of the proposed development.
Compared with the original proposal, these new diagrams in reality make the proposed significant changes EVEN MORE DISADVANAGEOUS to my immediate outlook due to:

• Vehicle noise and exhaust fumes from the large OPEN area ground floor garage at the back of the building directly opposite my unit.

• Indecent overlooking’s from a balcony and several windows directly opposite my unit.

• Current views, West to North from my unit will be lost.

As a concluding comment, I would add that before I purchase a property, I undertake detailed research in terms of the aspect, outlook, noise potential, hours of sunlight and general environmental atmosphere surrounding the intended residence.
I have to state categorically, this intended development will effectively wipe out all the multifarious advantages that was a crucial part of my original decision to purchase my property.
In addition, it will almost certainly depress to a significant extent the property values of all apartments in my complex that have been directly impacted.

Yours Sincerely,

Paula Svoboda
Owner - (SP98460) Unit 11, 1559-1563, Botany road, Botany 2019

A cabana? Seriously?

Meanwhile less than half a kilometre away, a service station next to MacDonalds has been "remediated" and converted to a car wreckers yard with no DA.

Council response?

Ok let’s just allow everyone to cover their whole block with buildings then. Great idea

This is an objection to the planned change of use to a recreational facility (gymnasium) of 17 / 57 A Rhodes Street, Hillsdale on the grounds that it will deteriorate nearby residents' amenity and is therefore contradicting council's vision of
'partnering with our community to protect and care for the community of life in Bayside ...'

It would be hypocritical of council to approve the proposed use for the following points:

• The gymnasium being frequented regularly will increase traffic noise, congestion on Rhodes St, add further pressure on street parking and be hazardous to pedestrians (including children and the elderly) using the footpath and navigating the entrance to the units.

• The increased use by cars of the entrance to the unit complex clearly escalates the possibility of car accidents.

• Loud music and associated noises from a gymnasium will impede the sleep of local residents, especially one whose operating hours begin at supposedly 5:00am. Sydney airport even imposes a curfew for planes restricting their movements until after 6am to respect the right of the local population getting enough sleep (a major contributor to a healthy lifestyle).

• Even before any judgement in relation to the operation of the gymnasium, there is already confusion and contradiction about its operating times.
- the Planning Alerts website lists operating hours as 5am - 7.30pm
- IN.VOLVE (the operators of the proposed gym) lists their operating hours as 4.30am - 6.30pm.
Why are there two totally different sets of operating hours? Which one is council basing a judgement on?

• There is a degree of passive assertiveness surrounding the operators of the proposed gymnasium. On Google maps, they have posted a video showing the extensive and costly renovations to the unit in preparation for the operation on the gym, even posting their operating hours.
This is before formal approval and begs the notion that IN.VOLVE are very confident that their development application has/will be approved before the due process is completed.

* A gymnasium operating from 5am to 7:30pm (their website says opening at 4:30am), 7 days a week near residential houses could have an impact on the people living in these houses, gymnasiums play loud music and heavy weights hitting the floor makes a loud thud, at at 57A noise echos down the long concrete driveway between the 2 rows of 2 story concrete and glass units.

* Car parking in Rhodes Street had become terrible since the development of large residential unit complexes, where will all the gymnasium users park their cars, is there enough parking onsite?

***** There's still the occasional odour issues with the coffee business operating next door at unit 18/57A Rhodes Street, we've all but given up on reporting it because council officers will never come to physically witness the problem and they deny there's a problem because of a flawed odour test.

Since when are there so many babies in Bexley? It seems like every week there is another application for yet another childcare. This area has already lost so many of it’s most beautiful homes to these ridiculous developments. Also who would want to go to this one when there are plenty in the area already?

Another 1930’s grand old house getting demolished and replaced with a modern 3 story cookie cutter building.
Why do we need another Childcare centre in Bexley, the Bayside Council already has another 2Childcare centres in planning within 500 metres of each other - 11 Highworth Ave, 1-3 Oriental St Bexley, plus the centre that is opening soon located on the ground floor 8-18 Stoney Creek Rd next to the Bexley RSL.
How will this development not affect the already HIGH traffic conditions on the cnr of Forest and Queen Victoria Rds. The application is for 7 staff and 5 customers parking in the basement for a centre that will house 82 children, plus we have a clearway on Forest Rd from 3-7pm. We will have cars queued up from Forest Rd into Queen Victoria Rds for daily drop offs and pick ups, this development and application doesn’t make and sense.
This intersection currently has 1 accident a week, with the additional movement of daily pick ups and drop off located at the above mention location plus the flow from the centre planned in 11 Highworth Ave ( the street that connects with Queen Victoria,this
will add further traffic congestion at peak times more congested.
The traffic studies conducted in the report for this development doesn’t NOT include the increase traffic and safety risks from 11 Highworth Ave.
Can I ask for you to reconsider this application on the bounds of traffic and safety, I don’t believe there is adequate parking available for daily pick ups and drop offs for the parents dropping their children off at this centre.

So what happens now?

The construction of a 130 room co-living housing development should be rejected. Our Council should provide more consideration to the surrounding areas, and what it is allowing the suburb to become. Overcrowding is already an issue in Rockdale and as a resident of Rockdale for over 30 years, I do not accept that the build will increase the vitality and lifestyle of Rockdale - in fact, it will do the opposite. Co-living is undesirable and there is not enough parking spaces for the 130 "apartments" being built. this build sells itself as being part of a "bigger plan" for Rockdale, and that might be the case on the other side of the station, but on proposed site, there is already heavy congestion in that area. My child attends the local school and i know the area simply cannot take this type of co-living. The Council should encourage designer to crate housing, habitable for families - not co-living Rockdale used to be a family area - now this feels more like a "nicer looking" boarding house. This application should be denied, as it is not what the community needs. I would be very suprosed if the applicant lives in the area.