All recent comments on applications from Bayside Council, NSW

The proposed building is huge and will totally block the view from our beloved public space and natural reserve. It's like they don't care about preserving our beautiful neighborhood or respecting our public areas. And get this, the building is actually taller than what the council allows. They're breaking the rules and setting a bad example for future developments.

I would like to know why this is a "complying" development, while others building a new home on an existing site needs a DA.

I also wonder why there are no documents uploaded to council's listing. Is it something to do with the certifier being our own, Mr Joe Awada?

Also do they need a separate permit to remove trees?

While the proposed duplex has a reasonably appealing design and being so close to Stoney creek road it won’t have too much of a negative impact on the quality of life for nearby residents, I am concerned that the application shows a three storey duplex yet the notification is saying that it is only two storeys. This is pretty misleading and it could set a bad example to developers who actually build hideous and cheap duplexes.

As someone who has recently bought on Russell Ave, I don't think this development should go ahead, it will ahead further congestion and noise to an already almost saturated area.

The old house was gutted, extended and rebuilt with pool cabana built under CD, so that existing footprint of former home so close to boundary could be maintained, then DA applied for to change use of cabana to secondary dwelling DA2022/192 , which was approved in 2022, now there is application for a building certificate.
so you can build what you like under CD, then change of use, even though its been pretty obvious that the plan from CDC was for secondary dwelling. Granny flats on land less that 10m wide need DA BEFORE, not after, this really does reek of corruption.

Boarding House and Co-living are the same
They both attract the wrong type of people and are not welcome near schools, parks and children’s play grounds
This should not be allowed

another story........ how many more will they apply for??????

$$$$$$$$$ who is paying who for this to occur??corruption at its finest.
no they cannot build an additional floor , sticks to high hell this whole build...

no
no
no
no

The local and wider community should be extremely grateful that the owner of this property and the adjoining one (formerly Victoria House) has sympathetically restored the existing dwellings while unobtrusively adding additional, contemporary accommodation to the rear.

This proposal, although necessitating the demolition of an existing residence, will result in a visually pleasing result, with a very sympathetic new dwelling and underground parking and squash courts. The dwelling is single story and fits nicely with the streetscape. The choice of dry pressed bricks for external finish purposes is also most pleasing.

It’s a shame more developers don’t follow this example as the number of cookie cutter, sterile, boundary to boundary, dual occupancy developments progressively ruin our streetscapes!

Yet again the old "additional floor added" ! Why oh why is this allowed? Surely the original approval should stand. It's almost a given & a rort.

While the structure seems suitable the parking is definitely inadequate.
4 x residential properties and 2 x commercial businesses with only 8 car spaces (and 1 disabled) planned.
At least 55% of residents own 2 or more vehicles in regional NSW. Doing the math all car spaces will be full without any allowance for employee vehicles or customer parking.
The surrounding area already has major parking issues impacting residents, this DA would only exacerbate it further as it currently stands.
This application needs more car spaces before it can even be considered!

There is clearly not enough off street parking planned for this development. Single building new builds are required to include suitable off street parking then why shouldn’t multi unit builds that bring in many more residents and their cars.
There have been plenty of these kinds of developments previously approved for the area, with street level shops remaining empty. Why approve another one.
The corner of Botany Rd and Tenderten St is busy enough. Yet another oversized development on Botany Rd is not necessary.

Have been living in the street for many years. This type of subdivision in a quiet, mostly family-orientated street sets an unwanted precedent in my opinion for further similar development , which will change the nature and feel/ambience of the streetscape, not to mention potential parking issues (which are already on the increase) and noise. This is not just about ‘one house’- its about opening up the floodgates to more of the same development, and even over-development, to the point where a single story house can have double-story high-wall structures on either side to the boundary (just look at Universal st)- no thanks! I realise that there is a housing crisis in Sydney but this NOT the street to start townhouse-like development to cram more people in. It’s bad enough with the amount of units in the area and lack of planning re: traffic flow and local infrastructure to support demand. Even public transport in Eastlakes has been cut back. I say NO mate!!!!

ABSOLUTELY NOT!
*bulk and scale way too big for this site especially for botany street frontage is it compliant fsr?
* there are already two other developments on botany road by Henley developments that are shops and housing @ banksmeadow and @ hale street and those shops are empty and dormant and banksmeadow has been so FOR YEARS
*why has the traffic plan been redacted? Tenterden is almost impassable now and dangerous and a dangerous intersection this building will create absolute chaos and accidents and the residents will suffer greatly especially since many houses don't have off street parking
*what is the plan to support full off street residential parking AND shop customers???
*the building on the opposite corner is up for sale and potential redevelopment no way can botany road in this location support this amount of large development and traffic
*large construction vehicles are not allowed on this part of botany road anyway and they won't fit on tenterden how will it get built?
NO NO NO

I fully agree with Fred and Ben, if this is in accordance with the DCP and LEP, what’s the issue? From what I can see this proposal is no different, in appearance, to any other 2 story home in the street and there is also various types of homes and buildings in the street, including a block of apartments, 2 storey homes and a church!
Front and side setbacks are the same as for a two story home and not boundary to boundary as people have been implying. The block doesn’t seem to be narrower than the typical 40 foot frontage block in the area. Frankly, I quite like the design and think it will add character to the neighbourhood and isn’t “box like”, it’s charming and pays homage to the older style homes.
Suggesting “wealthy” families should be able to afford their own block of land is an extremely ignorant comment to make, and also agree with Ben that this would make housing slightly more affordable in the area. Why do people just assume the owners are going to sell for profit, maybe it’s being built for their family??

It’s a real shame to see the character taken out of the area, replaced with boxes with unnecessary loud Mercedes AMGs in the driveway usually.

I am a resident of Harry Street, and the proposed development is on a very narrow block and I am surprised it’s even passed the required size requirement. This will change the landscape of this very traditional Sydney suburb which has managed retail a character amongst nearby overdevelopment. For this reason I am apposed to this application.

This is allowed under DCP and LEP in the area. There was a first in every street. Not approving this, if all criteria are met is a restriction on land owners.

You should be more concerned with the units and highrise in the area.

This should 100% be approved as these dwellings types exist throughout the area.

K Fletcher - my wife and I and our young daughter just moved to George Street - we are educated and both on decent salaries. All we want is to live on a nice big block with a backyard. The realities are that we have saved hard and buying a duplex like we have is the best option for us. I would encourage you to consider those who weren’t as fortunate to buy their home 20 or 30 years ago and have no mortgage in light of the property price increases combined with interest rate rises. These developments are vital and also make the street look nice. There are comments here on quality of build - we couldn’t be happier with the quality of the build with our duplex. There are comments here on purely maximizing profit. When we pass away, wouldn’t you rather have a larger estate to pass on to your children? Your comments don’t feel like they are based on current economic and social realities.

Fairly sure 'Keen Observer" would have seen that there are NO such developments in Harry St so why should there be. King St is NOT Harry St. It's predominantly a single storey residential street and should be preserved as is. These duplexes are essentially boxes, poorly designed and built with limited gardens/green space. Duplexes do not attract wealthy and educated people which in itself is such a bias. Most people who are 'wealthy" can afford to buy a single house on a full block. You also don't need to be educated to own a house - this is seriously laughable.
It's disheartening to see suburbs like Mascot and Eastlakes become so overdeveloped because Council is unwilling to put in planning controls to preserve the area but are happy to ensure the 'wealth' of developers instead.

Keen Observer is nameless. For a reason?
I am a local. I am saddened to see the area changed for what amounts to profit. Subdivided blocks are redeveloped in an often bland and utilitarian manner - get more people living on the space that once accommodated a family. I am constantly fascinated by the partition on these subdivisions at the front door to give a semblance of privacy to say two families living on one block.
My biggest concern is high rise creep from Rosebery and Zetland which The Grand promises and the once proposed redevelopment of Gardens R Us.

Preserve our historical character.

I totally agree. Where is the commitment to preserving our heritage and streetscape? By allowing the demolition of the historic and character-filled 5 Lydham Avenue, Rockdale, Council is encouraging the suburb's residential streetscape to become 'boxy-ugly' personified. These 'cookie-cutter' constructions do not stand the test of time nor do they contribute aesthetically to the streetscape. Unfortunately, Bexley is catching up fast. Can Council please demonstrate a commitment to upholding historical value and ensure the unique historical character of these suburbs before it vanishes forever.

To whom it may concern,
This development is on tiny parcel of land which means another’ pillar to post’ development occurring.

I wasn’t aware that this street is zoned to allow for this sort of development. The streetscape will be destroyed if this development is allowed. Have a look at Universal Street and the dual occupancy residences built there. No character or quality build.

These new builds are cheap and only built for quick cash by the developers. Stop this overdevelopment of the suburbs.

Keen Observer. (Or should I question you are bogus with no name)
You wouldn't have a vested interest in this development would you?
This proposed development is not in King Street or George St and thus has no relevance.
Wealthy and educated people buy whole blocks and never need to settle for half a one.