All recent comments on applications from Shellharbour City Council, NSW

Construction of this development is now complete. Traffic flow along Tongarra Road has been negatively impacted especially by patrons who are making the right hand turn to the premises from the narrow access of the West bound lane.
The original DA0053/2022 and Transport for NSW recommendations required signage to be erected to prevent access of the West bound traffic.
This has not been complied. Dangerous traffic flow conditions have resulted.

As a long term resident of Tullimbar, was wondering if council has taken into consideration the noise effect that these type of developments will have on neighbouring residents. The echo effect any kind of noise in and around the lane ways of Tullimbar can sometimes be extremely loud. Whether the noise be pool filters, kids play, music or loud cars the noise seems to echo up and down the lane ways. Just wondering if council has considered an independent study on noise levels in and around Tullimbar lane ways for this and any other future development.

Could this be a street number error? Townhouses newly built at this address and recently sold?

We need more buildings like this, still keeping the small town vibes/ architecture but just a little taller so more people can experience it and find a place to rent/own

Very nice designs I hope to see it in person

Building looks fantastic, more apartments here is appropriate and heaps more shop top housing should be fostered by the council - I strongly support this proposal. The upper level setback breach should be waived, the DCP shouldn’t even have this outdated value that leads to poor quality buildings and less supply. Melbourne councils are undergoing reviews to scrap it and so should this council to foster more home building. This proposal could have more dwellings, better quality, better views, better design and floor space, but apparently it’s more important that someone walking by on the street doesn’t have to crane their neck too high if they wish to inspect what’s on the roof. Upper level setbacks should be ignored until the DCP is updated. We can’t put silly, outdated anti-evidence made-up character obsessions ahead of delivering more housing to solve the housing crisis.

Dear Shellharbour Council Officers; Councillor's; Residents ; and Regulatory Authorities;

The CC Application references DAM032/2022 is understood to relate to BAGS - according to Council officer emails. How is it Council is advertising a related CC related to Remediation Creekwork?

It would be helpful to know which DA amendments and DA approvals that the Hazelton Creek remediation works are taking place and under which Development Consent .

We are aware Section 96 Amended DA Application 741/2002 was stamped by Shellharbour Council which was stamped on 27th September 2004.

Conditions of Consent for properties Lot 661 DP 1017233, Lot 56 DP 739857, Lot 2 DP 792437, & lot 1 DP 570091 Illawara Highway, Yellow Rock Road and Sophia Street Yellow Rock had prescribed Conditions of Consent No. 23; 23A and 23B of amended DA 741/2002 imposed and it is understood those Conditions remain outstanding.

It is noted Shellharbour Council was the landholder to which those Conditions of Consent applied.

Council has since disposed of it's landholding in Western Valley and it seems is has no concern regarding enforcement of Conditions of Consent for DA 741/2002.

If Council has forced Developers to address Conditions of consent for 23, 23A and 23B of DA 741/2002 it would be helpful if Council were to publish and make available to the public generally.

Further concerns arise with the Riparian Corridor on Hazelton Creek and lodged CC0203 which proposed the creation of Lot 330 DP 1261585.

CC00203 appears to split the Riparian Corridor shown on p16 of the Orion Report dated 21st May 2024 remaining as Open Space and in public ownership, into 2 parts. Under DA73/2018

However, with amended DA 473/2022, Dahua proposes to have this land in private ownership and attached to/become part of Stage 6 Lot (606) as outlined in the exhibited Plans.

Further, on page 7 of the SOEE it is stated “all C3 zoned land will be under private ownership with the owner of the lots required to maintain the land identified within their allotment “

On 29th July 2024 Council Advertised Construction Certificate ( Application ID CC0203/2024 Lot 330 DP ) Hazelton Creek Erosion Remediation Works.

The application was advertised as linked to DAMO032/2022 - Lot 330 DP 1261584.

Two concerns arise
(1) Two Riparian Corridors have been created
(2) The CC was advertised as part of DAMO032/2022 which was incorrect as this modification related to “. Modification To Condition 6 - Development In Accordance with Plans and Documents to update building Access Guidelines” - according to advise from Council Officer in 2022

It would be helpful if Council were to respond and clarify what is happening with Hazelton Creek Riparian Corridor and CC0203 and whether additional Lots of Land are being created contrary to DA Conditions of Consent DA 0073/2018

Thank you

Dear Shellharbour Council Officers; Councillor's; Residents ; and Regulatory Authorities;

The CC Application references DAM032/2022 is understood to relate to BAGS - according to Council officer emails. How is it Council is advertising a related CC related to Remediation Creekwork?

It would be helpful to know which DA amendments and DA approvals that the Hazelton Creek remediation works are taking place and under which Development Consent .

We are aware Section 96 Amended DA Application 741/2002 was stamped by Shellharbour Council which was stamped on 27th September 2004.

Conditions of Consent for properties Lot 661 DP 1017233, Lot 56 DP 739857, Lot 2 DP 792437, & lot 1 DP 570091 Illawara Highway, Yellow Rock Road and Sophia Street Yellow Rock had prescribed Conditions of Consent No. 23; 23A and 23B of amended DA 741/2002 imposed and it is understood those Conditions remain outstanding.

It is noted Shellharbour Council was the landholder to which those Conditions of Consent applied.

Council has since disposed of it's landholding in Western Valley and it seems is has no concern regarding enforcement of Conditions of Consent for DA 741/2002.

If Council has forced Developers to address Conditions of consent for 23, 23A and 23B of DA 741/2002 it would be helpful if Council were to publish and make available to the public generally.

Further concerns arise with the Riparian Corridor on Hazelton Creek and lodged CC0203 which proposed the creation of Lot 330 DP 1261585.

CC00203 appears to split the Riparian Corridor shown on p16 of the Orion Report dated 21st May 2024 remaining as Open Space and in public ownership, into 2 parts. Under DA73/2018

However, with amended DA 473/2022, Dahua proposes to have this land in private ownership and attached to/become part of Stage 6 Lot (606) as outlined in the exhibited Plans.

Further, on page 7 of the SOEE it is stated “all C3 zoned land will be under private ownership with the owner of the lots required to maintain the land identified within their allotment “

On 29th July 2024 Council Advertised Construction Certificate ( Application ID CC0203/2024 Lot 330 DP ) Hazelton Creek Erosion Remediation Works.

The application was advertised as linked to DAMO032/2022 - Lot 330 DP 1261584.

Two concerns arise
(1) Two Riparian Corridors have been created
(2) The CC was advertised as part of DAMO032/2022 which was incorrect as this modification related to “. Modification To Condition 6 - Development In Accordance with Plans and Documents to update building Access Guidelines” - according to advise from Council Officer in 2022

It would be helpful if Council were to respond and clarify what is happening with Hazelton Creek Riparian Corridor and CC0203 and whether additional Lots of Land are being created contrary to DA Conditions of Consent DA 0073/2018

Thank you

Is this applacation going through thanks

Will this complex be wheelchair accessible?

Why is council allowing concrete jungles to be built all over Oak Flats? 80 Griffiths is in the cul-de-sac end,where there are already multiple town houses in the street and I believe another 3 being built in 76 Griffiths st with the taking down of approx 7 trees!!! Being a very narrow street and on any given day becomes a one way street. My question to Council have you determined if Emergency vehicles, Garbage truck can get down the street with all the extra cars these townhouses are bringing?

another abomination. not socially, community orientated, ecofriendly, good design, no proper storage of water or personal items, no solar panels, no trees, poor presentation, poor-quality, low-quality materials.
Street is dumping ground by Council and Developers of JUNK units and townhouses., double storey where surroundings are single storey. Another blight on the street adding to road congestion, increased number of vehicles parked on a curve in the road and an intersection.

ridiculouly HIGH Density in a built up area. Should allow for several normal single level family homes between such constructions. More is better does not hold true when it comes to presentation (blending with surroundings) community feel is lost (Junk Ghettos of the future.) Builds not suitable for families, elderly and aged and those with disabilities (population is aging and governments and councils need to plan ahead with single Storey disability access and internal build features. The buildings are poor quality, small in size and only suitable for transient workers. No open community spaces, no substantial or notable trees greater than 3 meters. Barren concrete. gardens = plant pots Not gardens. dangerous navigating a vehicle in and about the build. Insufficient parking spaces and those that exist are too small and almost unusable.
No solar power, little or no rainwater tanks (note requirements for normal domestic home) no glazed windows, R rating for insulation too low and not within all wall, ceilings and floors (thus all the air conditioners popping up on these JUNK Units/Townhouses.
Fire safety - no fireproof doors to garage, narrow dangerous non-fireproof steeps, steeps have no emergency lighting in case of fire or blackout,

Just look at the place next door !!!!!!!!!! NO THANKYOU to being a Neighbour or tenant.

development in laymans terms IS HIGH DENSITY. Fror the sized block 3 townhouses are inappropriate. They leave little to no common open space, its all concrete with potted pot plants of little or no impact. Thus TWO townhouses single storey would be ideal when compared to surrounding FAMILY type home and not robbish little units/townhouses made of ticky-tacky (if 3 total cost $300 including land sales $800k)
None have compliance with disability, aged and family access. (see 32 Mulan Road as of poor access.
There are no fire exits nor fire proof walls stairs. (if fire occurs you'd need to jump from 1st floor. the connecting doors between garage and living area - no fire doors, Tenants commonly use garages as storage as the living areas too small, storage areas too small, garages too small for RV 's and even in rare event they are big enough its near impossible to park. Driveways are narrow and create tenant pedestrian dangers as well as vehicle movement difficulty.
The street has no curb parking allowance so temporary parking on the street should be for very short visits.(drop-off-pick up)
The no. of spaces for tenants and visitors are too few. Should be 2 for 2/3 bedroom plus 1 visitors space (designated to be used by visitors only) . 1bedroom 2 spaces and 1 visitors space,
Front unit/townhouse should not impinge on street line or scape. A straight line connecting to front of houses in the street or the best line of sight.
The facts mentioned above are but a few of building design that should have been taken into account. These are JUNK townhouses. only suitable for single transience
which does not create a communiy or feel, nor provide pride about their units appears.

I do not agree with this application. This street is already over crowded and narrow with cars parked on each side of the road there is barely enough room for a car to traverse through the street let alone a garbage truck or emergency service veichles. The owner of number 25 Lyne st will then be blocked in and surrounded by town houses . They have 3 town houses beside them , across from them and now a proposal to have more places beside them. Typically each family is a 2+ car family and therefore there will be a high likelihood of more cars being parked on the street than there currently is and there is just not enough room. Between 23-27 there will be 9 town houses. Two on the southern side of the road and one on the northern side of the road. That is basically 9 homes in the span of 3. Simply put there is not enough room, the residence of #25 will be boxed in by town houses and lose light and sun on there yard. I simply cannot fathom how this application was even allowed to be lodged. It's utterly Ludacris

The developer has shown insight with only constructing single semi detached dual occupancy on a block of that size and surrounding buildings.

There is no site diagram of the build to make further comment

Its the ongoing senseless damage of the environment by allowing the construction of high density (council - low density ????!!!!) housing.
The buildings are of very low quality yet priced at a premium (look at the cabinet work - construction poor ). The frames are simple box affairs which are weak and depend on sheets of chipboard to keep them stable. Some of these are exposed in the build process. We all know yellow tongue is the cheap and not weather proof (like wrist warches) . They are apt to leak, rot within the walls warp - due to very low standard of weather proofing (just as their bathrooms are). The rooms are very small and sleeping areas upstairs creating a fire risk and also endangering tenants as there are no fire doors on rge garage, stairs have no emergency lighting, are not of fire proof construction, very steep not deep and are very narrow. the floor under the upper floor is compound timber beams - open to garage and exposed to the yellow longue flooring.
The units are only suitable for temporary accommodation for those moving between jobs. not suitable for families aged or disabled. no disable approaches enreies are available let alone furniture to suite.
no open spaces - very little light - current light rules are a disgrace - this faced with heat in summer damp and cold in winter incurring large electricity costs which few can afford. Mold etc. is because of insufficient insulation and damp proofing of the internal walls. Thus little light dampness most year round - sickness inducing environment. Add to this the isolation with neighbours.
Garages and parking spaces insufficient for current tenants. minimum 2 per one bedroom unit. The garages are used for storage thus fire risk. with RV's and 4x4 mobility is difficult and dangerous to tenants and their vehicles - they park on road even when there is no off street parking allowance - making a two way a one way without adjusting the traffic flow.
Small water tanks - 500lt for 3 bedroom ????? should be 5000lt , no solar panels , no insulated sky lights etc - environmentally an absolute disaster.
Buy a house and land package and you'll be streaks ahead than these shoe boxes all the same same made of tick tacky

Perhaps i am misunderstanding, but the project information on the BASIX Certificate appears to be wrong?

The surrounding streets , the street itself already has a high density of these little boxes made of ticky tacky, traffic congestion, parking on the street creating additional dangerous conditions for all.
Only occupied because there is nothing else. Unsuitable for people with disabilities, elderly and those with young children. Denigrates the area , slums of the future, does absolutely nothing to attract permanent residence. Only contribute to increased rates for home owners in the area and consequently increased rate income to council without anything being put back for the community in the affected areas.
The environmental impact little or no green areas. trees , gardens
Buildings not ecologically sound - low levels "r" standards of insulation, no double glazing, no solar panels .
Fire risk - stairs steep and narrow
Garages too small for current vehicle sizes
Insufficient tenant parking and designated visitor parking.
Additional street congestion, dangerous to residents and visitors to the area

(Continued) Disability Access - no ramps, front doors are as narrow as they can get. (look odd-regardless of design.)
Low quality materials and standards are not the fault of private assessors as stated above - that was a typo error - "private assessors" should read "developers,designers and State Government very low building standards and regulations"

Another inappropriate build for the area. The street already has many of these shabby unimaginative, ecologically unsound, no green credentials, environmental damaging, non-solar or energy efficient (the shadowing rules are contrary to expectations of neighbours and tenants),BASIX and NatHERS are too low a standard and often abused by private assessors who cost save by using low quality (rated insulation etc.) materials glazing draft shields etc. Just have to see how many air conditioners there are in the windows of the blocks. Socially isolating and not suitable for the governments intended tenants - young families, the aged, those with disabilities and those who have had difficulty obtaining rental accommodation (steep narrow stairs, lots of exterior blind spots, no compliance with general disability access.
The street is not marked with curb parking neither side and by just looking up the street you can see the numerous parked vehicles from similar units.
The allowances for the number of onsite parking for tenants and visitors are ridiculous from evidence. The size and number of garages and parkiing space are more like appropriate for mini medium cars not the average ute or AV or 4x4 popular these days. Council and planning authorities need to revise these in the face of glaring evidence. Getting in and out of these units is difficult and dangerous for other tenants and passers by both human and vehicular traffic due to no real frontages and regular use of privacy walls right to the front boundary. Council and an independent body need to interview current tenants (not owners) or owner-tenants about the difficulties they face with all the above. The units are so small I note garages are often not used because entry by vehicles is difficult and also a lot are used for storage as they the units have limited storage space.

The Builder of thirds Townhouse are not working to Worksafe CoverRulrs. There is no meshing around scaffolding. This has resulted in a near miss of a peace of cyclone sheeting blowing over the fence in the current strong winds onto our driveway when a visitor was reversing her car down the driveway. I had to bang on her car to make her stop as it come over. Had I not been there it could caused damage to both her and her car or worse. We had requested the builder to place the meshing on the scaffolding, after two days it was removed. Fences on either side of the build have also been damaged by heavy machinery since the build commenced.

this property backs onto mine.
The shadowing from the last unit, will be dramatic compared to the existing situation.
The proximity to the rear boundary is insufficient to reduce noise to our rear patio.
The rear windows would impose greatly on our privacy
Thus, setback from the rear boundary should be extended to 5 meters not 900mm, allowing for greening against retaining wall and the last unit.
The rear 5+ meters formed part of a native corridor/green belt (promoted by previous councils), that ran the length of the street. Previous owners had removed the trees so they could easily sell the land to developers (illegal poisoning)
The street is not designed to have 3 units, it is narrow with no markings or allowance for offset parking. Two units would be more appropriate for the area.
There are no concreted footpaths.
The first unit facing the street should have the SAME SETBACK as existing building that line the street. NO PATIO AT FRONT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE INTRUDING INTO THIS SETBACK) Anything different would be out of character and ruin the street scape.
Fences either side should be 1200mm level in line with adjoining buildings and EQUAL TO THEIR SETBACK,
Native trees like those already growing on the footpath should be mandatory.
Buildings should match the street scape. NONE of this "modernism" JUNK UNIT - LEGO LAND colour scheme. Simple research street scape can deliver good results.
As for the actual units, tiny, cheap, no wall insulation, no 5000litre water tanks like normal houses require, no solar panels, no double glazing, no sky lights, NOT SUITABLE FOR SENIORS, THOSE WITH DISABILITIES OR THOSE WITH CHILDREN. (Possibly allow third unit if they are certified for disability accommodation.
Driveways too narrow.
Garages too small for current vehicles.
Insufficient parking for tenants Parking space of 2 for every 2- and 3-bedroom unit.
VISITORS ONLY parking - One space less than number of units - THUS FURTHER SUPPORT FOR ONLY TWO UNITS.
No public/communal space available

I think ten townhouses and two studio apartments is poor planning for this block. As it is proven that people do not put all there cars in there garages so they will be on the road. Ganya street is not very wide so if there is a car parked on both sides of the road you struggle to get through. Let alone if someone needs an Ambulance. All those Cars parked on Ganya Street could be an accident waiting to happen. Please reconsider the parking issues.

I totally agree with Keith's comments, there are 7 two storey units being put up next door to me at 15 Koona street APR, blocking totally now my lake views, there will be limited parking as well, no where for 14 garbage bins to go, shocking design, all the same awful looking boxes they call design, yes shame on council for letting this happen.

agree with previous statement.
All similar complexes have insufficient onsite parking in two respects sizes and number of garages - not compliant with the size of most modern vehicles. Also access and movement is dangerous and difficult due to narrow driveways. They should be much wider. it's as if no compliance officers have reviewed existing complexes or grouping of 4 or more units to physically see the issues nor have they interviewed tenants to gauge what issues they experience living in these Junk units.
Secondly onsite parking is very lacking. Driving by any of these types of units, especially after business hours one can see the number of vehicles parked on the street or intruding into public space (as the front setback is too short - should match surrounding blocks. The number/ratio of onsite open space parking needs to be increased to at least one parking space for each unit. Even one-bedroom units these days are occupied by two tenants who have two cars.
Then there is the visitors parking. By the number of cars parked in front of these Junk Units it's also abundantly clear insufficient number of visitor parking is provided onsite. 6 units need a minimum of two designated "visitors only" parking spaces.
Then you have lack of public/communal/green open space. None.!!!
Brick, tin and fibro jungles! Junk Units. Trees are removed and even though they are not natives (and sometimes even when they are) should be replaced with the equivalent area of local native plants to maintain a "Green Shellhabour."
Excluding driveway plantings, a set area percentage of total block could be set aside for trees say 10%.
When it comes to the units themselves - Junk.! same same same - like Commission Homes of yester year - I thought we had moved away from this approach from learned experience. BUT NO. Little boxes on the hill side brown ones grey ones white ones that all look the same. Built to some bazaar model which is simply twigged to fit the entire block, small internal space can't even fit a decent wardrobe in most and those that do have built-in , the size of a laundry cupboard. In short not appropriate for families, elderly or incapacitated, Shame Council.