All recent comments on applications from City of Lismore, NSW

We live in 5 Janice Court Bexhill. We would like to know what it means in " Change of dwelling ". It was quite obvious from day 1 of construction that the proposed shed/dwelling was going to be a dwelling. Very disappointing that we have the standard height wooden fence and now have to consider planting some sort of trees/shrubs to regain some of our privacy because of the height of the decking on so called shed/dwelling

Whilst I appreciate development is inevitable in area I have my concerns around vehicle movements in regards to the development at 226 Invercauld Rd.

The intersection at the corner or Invercauld Rd and Cynthia Wilson is highly inadequate to service another 500-4000 vehicle movements a day.

Also, the intersection of Ballina Rd and Invercauld Rd is extremely dangerous. Any extra vehicles from this development will be funnelled through back streets to Rous Rd during times where turning is restricted into Ballina rd.

Two roundabouts should be installed to ensure safety. One at Cynthia Wilson and a major roundabout at Invercauld Rd and Ballina Rd.

It is an accident waiting to happen and lives will be lost.

The statement of environmental effects document (SEE) has not been properly considered by council and in some cases is misleading.

Context and Setting (page 4)
ticks the box that says it is not out of context with the surrounding area or inconsistent with surrounding landuses. The whole community is out of context with the surrounding area which has contiguous vegetation adjoining the rainforests of Nightcap National Park and has a shared boundary with a Wildlife Refuge and properties managed for Bio-diversity .

Privacy, views and overshadowing (page 4)
1.ticks the box saying there will be no privacy issues with adjoining neighbours, It will directly affect the freehold neighbour ( lot1 ) and be in line of sight with no buffer vegetation.
2. ticks the box saying no acoustic issues with adjoining properties. The noise from this community to adjoining neighbours is constant. Noise is generated from pumps, generators, cars, dogs, traffic, mowers, earth moving equipment, machinery, radios etc Every time a new house goes in the noise is amplified. An established vegetation buffer for the neighbours to the north and east is required and was part of the original DA approval requirements.

Access, traffic and utilities:
Every new house built creates more traffic and more noise. Blue Knob road is inadequate to cope with more traffic and is in a degraded state already particularly where the communities access point meets Blue-Knob road.

Environmental Issues
• Could council please clarify what sewerage system the proposed house will have in place. The DA application says it was installed by the previous owners. Is it approved by council?
• Is it a septic system or a composting toilet?
• The house plans show that the house site is above a sloping terrace system that flows into a small dam. This dam, in turn flows into a permanent waterway, marked on a topographic map not ephemeral, which in turn flows into another dam downstream on the community. This dam overflows directly onto the neighbours property (lot 4) which then forms a permanent waterway flowing into Websters creek. Websters creek is known habitat for Mixophyes iteratus and fleayi which are endangered under the BC Act,2016 and the EPBC Act,1999.
• Websters creek is also known habitat for many threatened species notably the Grey-crowned babblers (Steve Millage, BioNEt,2012) but also Glossy -black cockatoos, Rose-crowned fruit dove, Wompoo fruit-dove, Marbled Frogmouth, koala, Grey-headed flying fox, Golden-tipped bat and many more.
• How will council be addressing effluent entering these sensitive waterways (particularly during flooding events) and what measures are council undertaking to protect our threatened species?
• How will the council and the community address run-off over flowing onto the neighbours properties particularly lots 1 and 4? What measures will be put in place to address this prior to the house being built?
• This run-off overflow has been an issue for years but has come to head now that the land has been cleared for so many houses.

Flora and fauna
Is the development likely to have any impact on threatened species or native habitat? The box is ticked no in the SEE.
Dogs on this community have been impacting koala movement and four koalas have had to be euthanised due to dog attack in the local area. One koala was found dead directly adjacent to where a community member owns a dog and one on the adjacent Wildlife refuge (found with dog puncture wounds). Please see above about impacts on Threatened species and the waterways
.
Waste and Stormwater Disposal
Could council confirm what sewerage system is in place and whether it is council approved?

Other Issues
• Could council please provide to the neighbours and the community the original surveyors documents that must have been completed before the original DA for the housing development was approved. By providing these documents any ambiguity about where the boundary fence is located will be removed.
• It is important for the members of the community, new and otherwise, to realise that existing fence lines are not boundary fence lines. These fence lines were built for running and containing cattle not delineating a dividing fence between properties.
• The house plans indicate some vegetation landscaping to go ahead around the house site but none towards the North to buffer the noise to the neighbours. The original DA vegetation buffer requirements were specifically put in the approval to buffer the northern neighbours. Every house that gets built on this community faces north (which is why the requirements were put in place) and yet none of the houses ever plant trees in the northern aspect. Wouldn’t it be better to put in place medium level vegetation during the planning stage rather than once again leave it to the neighbours to have to buffer?

In the section 'Waste and Stormwater Disposal' of the 'Statement of environmental effects - Bedford + Daley.Statement-of-Environmental-Effects--Minor-Development.pdf - 929 BLUE KNOB ROAD BLUE KNOB 2480', it states that " Existing on-site sewer system has been installed by previous land owners." Has this system been inspected and approved by council also is it sufficient to prevent leakage into the environment and near by waterways?

It is good to see this housing development is now following council planning regulations and no more add hoc, unapproved structures are being built in riparian areas. The neighbours ask that the dwelling proposed at site 7 be low impact visually and have a vegetation buffer put in place prior to building commencing. The original DA approval stated that neighbours to the North-East would be buffered from the houses and that has never happened. Although there appears to be vegetation between the houses on a map the fact is, it is at a much lower elevation and provides no visual or noise buffer at all, particularly 977 blue-knob road. The neighbours to the North-East 989,977,1035,1053 blue knob road all manage their properties for biodiversity and the impacts of continual building, dog ownership, vegetation removal, noise and traffic has had ongoing negative impacts. In fact, four koalas in the direct area have recently been taken to Friends of the Koala and euthanised due to dog attack. Council can not do anything about this community owning dogs but they can consider the sensitive, biodiverse area they approve development in and refuse to allow removal of primary koala feed trees (Primary feed trees were removed when the last house was built and that has effected threatened species (koalas seen running on the ground)which is not mentioned on councils DA tracker site. Council can also protect critical habitats such as riparian areas. The neighbours ask that council considers the natural environment if approving this dwelling and ensures a significant noise and visual vegetation buffer exists before building commences. The building footprint should have as little impact on amenities and the natural environment as possible eg one story structure. Council should also have site 7 surveyed before allowing this dwelling to proceed as there has been prior disputes over the dividing fence which needed surveying to resolve. To resolve the dispute and reclaim their land, was a large personal expense to the freehold landowner. The survey found that the boundary fence ended up very close to an existing dwelling (site 11) on the community and no-one wants this experience relived at site 7

Dear Council, Please approve my DA. I have submitted my application 6 months ago. I have lodged all the required documents and Map with my application. Please consider the delayed time. During this catastrophic flood, I have lost everything. I have to rebuilt my house and slowly collect household things. Unable to do job due to no transport and injured knee. This is my utmost request to Lismore city council to approve my DA for a shed. Thanking you, Swasti Singh

Whilst I appreciate development is inevitable in area I have my concerns around vehicle movements in regards to the development at 226 Invercauld Rd.

The intersection at the corner or Invercauld Rd and Cynthia Wilson is highly inadequate to service another 500-4000 vehicle movements a day.

Also, the intersection of Ballina Rd and Invercauld Rd is extremely dangerous. Any extra vehicles from this development will be funnelled through back streets to Rous Rd during times where turning is restricted into Ballina rd.

Two roundabouts should be installed to ensure safety. One at Cynthia Wilson and a major roundabout at Invercauld Rd and Ballina Rd.

It is an accident waiting to happen and lives will be lost.

I second Simon Wright's comment - more local mental health support would be great.

I think this is a great idea. We really need medical / mental health services. In the current climate of Covid 19 we need as much help and support as possible.

Blue wren place already suffering lack of space for parking for visitors vehicles, rubbish bin placement, delivery vehicle access and emergency vehicle parking. I believe another two house lots of residents with associated vehicles etc, is more than this small area can safely accomodate hence my objection to this application

To Whom it may concern
Re application to a shed development on
9Janice Court Bexhill NSW
Nick and Angela Rugendyke as we have just received email re building shed behind us 35 Coleman Street Bexhill I would like to be able to speck to the development office to discuss this matter as to the possibility of having the shed moved on the block to another spot
Could we please be able to set up a time and date to discuss, this matter Whit the owner Joel Fitness and your self at the block or in Council office
Thank you
Nick and Angela Rugendyke 35 Coleman Street Bexhill
0434612906
Hopeing to hear back soon

The house has a little problem I'm a neighbour and make sure you get a very good house inspection!!;

a landscape buffer needs to be planted according to councils guidelines PRIOR to a construction certificate being issued. This is clearly stated in the DA approval that was emailed to me by David Leard. As yet, no landscaping works have been undertaken on this site to buffer the neighbours to the north.

I as a very close neighbour to this development do NOT want troubled teens or risk of crime in my town.
We are a small village who already struggle with police and emergency response time.
The community were not consulted on this. We were all under the impression that this property was to be a solar farm servicing our community.
We the community want an open meeting about this. I firmly believe the negative effects this development will create in Dunoon far outweigh the positive.

I am AGAINST this development

Just as the others have queried, I’d love to know if it’s an individual, group or company applying for this. It doesn’t seem right for an individual or company to apply for a RLC with the scope to just develop, profit and move on

I would like some clarification and more information about whether this application is from an individual or a group of people. (As a rural land sharing community by definition needs to be a group of people.) Thank you.

Is this a RLC or a sub development. Who are the shareholders and the occupants?

I was unfortunately a tenant to this landlord.
The property can only supply upto 9,000L of water as opposed to the 20,000L that's the standard minimum supply ( and potential for catching future water.
The subfloor of the house is completely exposed to ember attack in the circumstances of a fire in the area.
There are no additional provisions for tanks to service any forms of fire.
A losing battle to heat and regulate heat within the house due to dozens and dozens of gaps, cracks and holes throughout the floors of the house.

I feel that this should not be allowed to proceed any further as I seriously wonder if the house I was a tenant in even has a C of O with the over steep access ramp at the front porch. It's a death trap waiting to hurt somebody dramatically.

Letting this project proceed is plain madness

This man should not be able to be a landlord We rented this unit. The tanks are not big enough for tenants. He is a Yankee slave owner. Please review him As he is already renting these out !

There is currently a significant landslip within close proximity down slope (north)of this property on the adjacent parcel of land. currently no work has been done to make safe. LCC is aware of the issue and have apparently begun a temporary fix to a broken storm water pipe on the adjoining property where the landslip is occurring.
Without significant slope stabilization works i am concerned that this development with cause further destabilization of the slope and be in itself at risk of being undermined by landslip issues.
As a down slope neighbor to this proposed development i am concerned that our property will be further impacted by the excessive water run off and land landslip.