All recent comments on applications from Bayside Council, NSW

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.

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 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.

Shame to lose another part of Bexley to yet another dual occupancy that will look exactly like all the houses being built in western Sydney.

All this will do is great HUGE privacy issues for the neighbor at 55 Sparks St Mascot, not to mentions lack of solar access to their backyard until midday

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

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 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!!!

This development is good for community support of those less capable either physically or mentally. It dovetails well with the adjacent DA currently under consideration.

So the existing structures will be demolished. What will replace them or is it a surprise??

So the existing structures will be demolished. What will replace them or is it a surprise??

As a neighbour I’d like to know what the modifications/changes are to the first floor balconies!

7&9 Fleet St share private sewer. Current owner of 9 Fleet St knew this at purchase. Owner of 9 Fleet St needs to make good faith effort to meet their legal obligation through negotiation with owners of 7 Fleet St.
Current submission includes a number of modifications from the previous submission that substantially impact the amenity of the area to local residents, including access to sunlight for 7 Fleet St.
No community housing provider has been engaged to ensure the proper operation of the residence and the safety and amenity of the residents, including any persons living with disability.

Is it really necessary to cut down so many trees ? Dunmore Street is a gracious place and to lose heritage as well is a bridge too far ! We must strive to maintain the lovely parts of our areas and this seems like sacrilege !

Is it really necessary to cut down so many trees ? Dunmore Street is a gracious place and to lose heritage as well is a bridge too far ! We must strive to maintain the lovely parts of our areas and this seems like sacrilege !

no no no no, there is a huge monstrosity going up in Albyn st already, where the post office was. We do not need any more overdevelopment in this area, there are enough locks of flats in Dunmore street, as it is, we need so much more greenspace kept, its too late once these cowboys come in and wreck yet another site no no no

There is a major issue with modifications to the DA and notably the removal of the condition that prohibits the developer from disconnecting neighbours from the sewer, which could create a biohazard and unhygienic environment.

It seems incomprehensible that one would contemplate this development proposal. Firstly, destroying 19 trees in a suburb well known for its dearth of trees and green space, in a time of climate change and extensive loss of habitat, appears to be a blatant disregard of these crucial issues. It is a horrific prospect to consider. Even if the developer considered planting a few shrubs or trees as replacement, this would never substitute for the advantages that these 19 trees have long provided, and continue to provide to humans, animals and climate.

Secondly, the destruction of a period dwelling and construction of a two-storey building with 31 total car spaces, will alter the peaceful and rare environment of iconic Dunmore St North. It is Bexley's best heritage and wide-set street, a quiet haven set so close to the noisy, polluted and truck ridden roads of Forest, Stoney Creek and Harrow. Why would one propose this childcare business here knowing that it would increase traffic and noise in a rare section of suburban peace?

Has the applicant not heard of the Heritage Conservation Plan, nor have regard for the vital role the 19 established trees play in providing habitat and the mitigation of concrete hot spots?

Council is urged to reject this application

This modification to the DA should be looked at closely.
Boarding houses on less than 600m2 are not permitted in Bayside LGA.
Boarding houses need to be managed by a registered community housing provider.
Deleting condition 27 could lead to wastewater overflowing which the council would need to address.
Increased overshadowing from the southern dormer, Set back encroachment from the added balconies.
All this leads to loss of amenity for the neighbours and not in keeping with the neighbourhood.

I am concerned about the development at 9 Fleet St Carlton..
My main concern is relates to the applicant wanting to delete condition 27 which protects the sewerage connection with No 7, The modification exceeds the allowable floor spaceratio for the zoning and the additional entrancedoors, balconies and windows which increase the bulk and appearance of thye building, which iss not in keeping with the lo9cal area and the resulting decrease in the building's landscaping.

Not compliant with setback, floor space ratio and minimum lot size. It’s on 464m2 and minimum is 600m2.

Haven’t we had enough of the jackhammer from this housing complex ?

Don’t know who you are Curious George but you made my day. Thankyou

I think this is a good development! A severe shortage affordable housing in the area and hopefully this development revitalises an eye sore of a building on the main street on Bexley.