All recent comments on applications from Bayside Council, NSW

This will change the appearance and nature of the street which is quiet and family orientated. It also sets a precedent for ‘subdivisions’ to maximise value.

I quite agree,our street and surrounds have been ruined.
I was told by rockdale council they have NO control as was gets built!!
Apparently it's the state government.
Rockdale has become an ugly suburb, there is NO interest in preserving these federation houses that have been standing for over 100 years.
What an ugly suburb we live in.
SHAME ON YOU.

This is one of Rockdale's finest examples of Federation architecture, owned by the one family for over 100 years until recently. It is situated metres from historic Lydham Hall and features original fireplaces and ornate ceilings. Lydham Avenue and the surrounding streets boast numerous properties from this era, many beautifully preserved.

There is a clear juxtaposition between the existing residences and character of the streetscape and this DA. They are in fact diametrically opposed ideas. There is no meaningful attempt to deeply and authentically respond to and interpret the local
character as recommended in the Department of Planning guidelines.

I urge Council to protect the public interest by upholding the objectives of the local planning instruments and refuse this application.

I think the subdivision of this standard "non corner" block in a quiet street of Eastlakes demonstrates an unnecessary overdevelopment. I believe this to be the first subdivision in this street and will set a precedent.

Harry said:

"Does this mean the external finishes will revert to the usual stark, rendered, sterile, monotone ones that leach and look terrible after a short period of time? I hope not, as the predominately dry pressed face brick finish that was approved looked classy and distinctive. Please stick with the aesthetically pleasing finish that will improve the amenity of this busy location.

Given the take up of electric vehicles and the trip hazards being created by extension cords across footpaths charging electric vehicles, reducing the EV stations from 7 to 3 will probably prove retrograde."

I highly recommend that Bayside consider this as it is a concern of mine as well.

I would like to ask what parking will be made available as there are already issues with on street parking in the area, especially during business hours.
What kind of impact is this DA projected to have on on-street parking?

This so wrong on so many levels, 3.7M high built fence line to fence line, not in keeping with existing building design, a breech of easements on the property, absolutely no consideration for the neighbors.

Why is there so many modifications being done AFTER DA approval?
adding more height of 150mm now, will they do this again til they cqan get another story in?

Does this mean the external finishes will revert to the usual stark, rendered, sterile, monotone ones that leach and look terrible after a short period of time? I hope not, as the predominately dry pressed face brick finish that was approved looked classy and distinctive. Please stick with the aesthetically pleasing finish that will improve the amenity of this busy location.

Given the take up of electric vehicles and the trip hazards being created by extension cords across footpaths charging electric vehicles, reducing the EV stations from 7 to 3 will probably prove retrograde.

Why is this not surprising! Pretty much all "approved" developers are later modified adding extra floors. Boarding houses are the flavour of the month! Little parking if any, tiny apartments & the option to strata at a later date.

This planning disease is known as development creep. Rather than being treated and eliminated by planning authorities, it is in fact encouraged by loose and favourably worded planning instruments, invariably interpreted in favour of proponents.

These applications consistently misuse the system when, in fact, they should be forced to start again. They represent gross changes that should not be covered by the amendment provisions. How can an additional floor be regarded as a modification? I guess that’s “another story”!

A fresh application is required. Alas, the system fails again.

I agree with Kevin . After the development is approved the developer then returns to Council to squeeze a bit mor from Council . Or the size or shape of the rooms is changed . Or a three bedroom apartment is changed to a one and a two bedroom instead .
It seems to be the way they operate now .

I agree with Kevin . After the development is approved the developer then returns to Council to squeeze a bit mor from Council . Or the size or shape of the rooms is changed . Or a three bedroom apartment is changed to a one and a two bedroom instead .
It seems to be the way they operate now .

Why is it tham invariably when developments are approved (and started) that they are allowed to add additional height & floors? 😭

This is ridiculous. It is proposed in one of the most dangerous and congested spots. Trucks are constantly running red lights and there have been at least 5 serious accidents in the last two years (since the traffic has exploded due to the toll on the m5 east). In addition, there are already 13 other childcare centres that I'm aware of in close proximity to this site:Albyn St, Gladstone St, highworth ave, rawson ave, 2x glenfarne st, forest Rd, donnan, mimosa, Queen Victoria, Bruce. It is not the place for a childcare centre. That is a spot that has seen over 7500 extra vehicles darting through the intersection in the last two years. Bexley needs better essential shopping such as woolworths or aldi, not more childcare centres. Otherwise this area will continue to be a throughfare for traffic and nothing else.

That is a very sensible comment !

No to the tree removal if they are mature native and viable build around them

No to the tree removal if it’s mature and native and viable. Build around it others do

Bexley is fast becoming the Child Care Centre of Sydney. Saturation point must surely be near.

Whilst it’s good to see a proposal to incorporate a new facility within a new apartment building rather than imposed on residents in quiet residential streets, it is impossible to see how access and egress can safely be managed from this extremely busy location, particularly as the access is via Stoney Creek Road.

Residents and others visiting this building will find it difficult enough, let alone up to 200 drop off and pick ups during peak times.

Very inappropriate location for a boarding house.
It's a small residential street that's already being impacted from airport traffic and numerous building works in the area.

No way. The road is already too congested with a lot of traffic on street parking and airport traffic waiting in the road for flights to land. Too many structures around that location and not sufficient infrastructure or space. It’s a residential street with mainly owner occupiers. Having a boarding house with an additional 9 people in it will push the place over capacity.

How is traffic going to be managed? this is an inappropriate placing for a child care centre. Traffic will be more farcical than it is now, absolutely ridiculous.

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 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.