All recent comments on applications from Shellharbour City Council, NSW

I do not believe that this proposal is in the best interest of the Albion Park community. Two service stations in the cbd area already provides for the communities needs, and do not cause traffic congestion. Traffic on Tongarra Rd is already overwhelmed by the over development of Calderwood and Tullimba without any thought for infrastructure to service these two communities. Tongarra Rd is grid locked during peak hours with traffic backed up for up to a kilometre in both directions, east and west. This proposal will only exacerbate the problem.

I feel this is not the appropriate place for a service station and specially shops. Tongarra Road is already not coping with the amount of traffic that crawls through town on a daily basis, adding this development in the proposed site will only make matters much worse and create a much worse traffic problem. A service station would serve better if it was at the Western edge of town (Calderwood/Tullimbar).

Please remove the asbestos cladding safely, on the council website it says there is no asbestos present on the existing dwelling when there obviously is.

Again: Its late. The horrible black and whites are up and look dreadful. For Sale signs are up.
Just look at fans installed on service station side - disbelief gives a buyer a precursor of the quality to expect inside - extremely poor. Also the external finishes. I wouldn't bother even looking any further. There's a saying " fools tread roads where other avoid. " I'd at a minimum would have an independent building inspection done and ask for a quantity surveyors report for the unit of interest - do not rely on the developer or real estate agent to do so - if so fool you - even though you might be paying $600,000 plus you are only getting max $300,000 of land and building true value.

My property is located at 5 Amaral Ave Albion Park which backs onto 8 Dovers Ave Albion Park. I am concerned with the natural flow of water which flows across our backyard. When it rains our backyard is flooded. This was compounded more when multi units were built at 1-3 Amaral Ave. I am very concerned by flooding of our yard when these units are built and also the construction of the proposed retaining wall.

Thank you
Jan Burge

I live in the same street as this future over- development
The streets are starting to be over populated with this constant building of squeezed in town-houses that block all of our views and street parking.
I also completely agree with Andrew and Keith’s comments!
I believe this should not go ahead at all as it will just encourage more developers to knock down and squeeze in even more and it’s starting to get ridiculous.

They may as well subdivide as they are almost complete and SUPPOSEDLY ALL but one is sold - interesting !!!!!!!!

They look worse than i imaged from the sketches and plans . FIBRO TIN ROOF some brick. - the type of build my generation would avoid like the plague - that's probably why they are saying all sold bar one. - Build JUNK units and they just add to the oversupply of over 200 units vacant and available for sale in OAK FLATS proper. Again this speaks highly of the poor standard of design material choices and size of the units "Little boxes made of ticky tacky, Little boxes all the same, There's a white and grey ones and a grey and white one And a white and bone and brown one and a bone and black, bone and white one And they're all made out of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same". Green street revisited !!!!!!!!

This overdevelopment MUST come to an end.
Hopefully the new Mayor may see some sense and protect Oak Flats from this development in nice and for all.

Please. Surely there have been enough townhouses in our beautiful little Oak Flats township. I totally agree with the above comment. Over the past 2 years, living in Oak Flats and having received the planning alerts 80% of them are for townhouses and none of them have been denied. It’s getting worse with overcrowded local roads and parking. Please, stop the slaughter of our local character. It will become a ghetto of cheap, nasty and characterless housing.

Further to my previous comments - I note so far, for the many proposals I've seen, ALL shade diagrams fail to show the effect of trees and structures on the site from either side and behind the proposed building and conversely the effect of the proposed build taking into account existing structures and trees on adjoining properties . This bias approach is used to achieve full sun for 3hrs a day only at the site NOT the effect it has on the neighbours who may get a lot less.

CC: Mayor of Shellharbour
Environmental Effects - DRAMATIC on a secondary narrow tree lined road.
The Project is DEFINITELY NOT "10 Star Living" as the proposal states "quite modern...seamless integration and help tie in the neighbourhood , using similar cladding styles ...as many neighbouring dwellings" WRONG - neighbouring dwellings are TILED ROOFED. UNIT1 encroaches 100% on the common current front setback in the street.
The street is norrow and any additional cars being parked their - which will occur as demonstrated regularly in like builds - cause dangerous situations for drivers and tenants in the street
The greater majority of the dwellings are family homes of a single storey . Two storey muliple dwelling in the similar to other JUNK builds Prison Block style is TOTALLY OUT OF PLACE with the character of the street and actually DEGRADE the current presentation.
The setback at the rear should be maintained at approx. 3 m . The rear of the property forms part of an eco-corridor and seepage drainage system for Lake Entrance Road residence. Also NATIVE TREES on the property and THOSE OF ADJOINING properties need to be protected. Any tree in adjoining blocks where native trees are within 2m of the boundary fence should have root ball systems protect with at least 3m building exclusion zone. thus the planned 900mm would be minimum 2m .
Privacy fences on new builds are on average well over 2m and impact on solar access and provide a BLANK usually GREY wall to look at. They are NOT "another element of architectural design" Its a BLIGHT on any one who can see it from the REAR of their property as well as adjoing neighbours. open space and principal private open space - 20sqm - 4m x5m times 4 units 80sqm . The total Open space is therefore 80/743m = 11% of concrete !!! How much has been allowed for green open areas ????? Current building has approx. 250 sqm of green area. WHAT AN IMPROVEMENT!!!!
Parking - insufficient and too - "SINGLE GARAGE !!!!!!" and TWO DESIGNATED parking spots for 2 other units. Visitor parking should provide a minimum of 3 marked spaces not fronting the street . The size of parking spaces should be REALIST. All builds of this type I have visited, with a 4x4 very common these days and due to their size parked infront of garages and across the footpath, I cannot enter and exit in a forward direction with assistance of cameras. The assertion needs to be tested and with a 4x4 - you see them at every JUNK build.
10 Star build would include solar hot water and solar power. Have skylights to compliment air flow. Double glazing on windows and sliders and doors. Water tanks to reduce amount of water being wasted and going into our waterways. Homes of 3 bedrooms are required 5000 liter rainwater tanks whereas these JUNK builds sometimes have 500 liters in total - this discriminatory and these dwellings - if 3 bedroom 5000liters, 2 bedroom 3000litres, 1 bedroom 1000litres. Simple good design features future proof developments and attract tenants,
The buildings make no allowance for access for young families, elderly or those with disabilities. Step stairs. Fire protection at a minimum - jump from window as ground floor kitchen burns. Toilets and benches inappropriate for those above, Another example of good design. Sorry "10 Star Living" - I'm giving you 1 out 10 . Very amateur.

I am writing to object to the overdevelopment of what is a relatively small lot in a quiet street, 4 townhouses does not fit in existing character or streetscape of surrounding lots which consist of single dwellings. I refer to the submitted SOEE as this is all that is available on council's e-services page.
1. LEP FSR of 0.5:1, is not referenced in the SOEE, unsure if proposal complies without seeing plans.
2. Primary setback, Front setback complies with DCP however is well forward of the 2 neighbouring dwellings which scale at about 9m. This is totally out of character with existing streetscape.
3. Rear setback, variation has been sought however reducing rear setback from 3m to 1.3m is excessive
This proposal sets a dangerous precendence of overdevelopment of smaller lots, creating streets full of parked cars & rows of 8 garbage bins.
Thank you.

you can already see the issue of a second dwelling from the Google shot of the address - cars everywhere . Note these are "small" cars and not typical . So with another dwelling increase in parking easily confirmed by driving by a similar5 build. Council needs to redress off street parking provisions and the size of the provided spaces for visitors and residence. I note that Council is enforcing the clear marking of off street parking spots, however who is policing the parking and are fines applicable ? Also note any garages need to be for the now UTE and 4x4 to be able to park inside the garage and manoeuvre in and out of the garage. Most garages in junk units are for matchbox cars and end up being a storage area thus cars are parked in access ways and on the street. Further note the storage of materials/items in these matchbox garages does include various flammable liquids - fire safety risk is dramatically increased for residence and neighbours. - thus "matchbox" garages. Also these new dwellings are "junk" builds contributing to increased drainage - water not being used for laundry, toilets and hot water systems , extra demand on electricity/gas - due to no solar panels, no double glazing ,low 2.5 insulation , fibro cladding (villa board etc = fibro ). etc etc

The street image and mix is being altered from homes suitable for families, aged and those with disabilities to area suitable for transient people (mainly renters - as $890,000 for a 9 SQ 3 brm including garages patios etc.). All builds are of a very poor (yet allowable ???) quality materials and questionable build quality. They would have little appeal in the after market as their appearance an appeal will decline dramatically - narrow driveway - not suitable for most 4x4, garages which are too small fort same , insufficient parking spaces , and those that are available difficult to manoeuvre into. Access in and around the builds is extremely difficult. They pose a danger to residence and the public. The number of vehicles has increased dramatically making it difficult for neighbours to park. These cars cause a traffic hazard as two lanes are reduced to one. The block has no green areas, no play areas for children , lack adequate water tanks to mitigate increased water drainage during rain storms . They downgrade the area to a slum standard - the area is getting the reputation of being the new Warilla !!!!. Nobody was in a hurry to by houses houses ! back in the day , or green st. . This will be "Malin Road"!!!!!! Nice reputation. Locals are forced out by having these monstrosities next door invading privacy , sunlight , peace and quite and , reduced greening of the area. The developers only pay rates initially and some fees and walk off with a million or more not spending a $ 1 to beautify or green the area , donate green open areas etc. We are left with "dumps " literally because of design and build quality. If I were an investor I would stay away from these as there is a large amount of misleading information about earnings etc from these "junk" units. Check with a building assessor and accountant before you put a $1 towards these and other build of "prision blocks" in the street . The number of unsold units would now be in the hundreds in Oak Flats area. Just do a drive by . I recently saw a sign stating certain units had been sold - but a real estate showed they and the remaining units were still on the market .

As a resident directly opposite this proposal I am extremely concerned about the high impact of potential car intrusion to this area. This proposal will potentially see an additional 12 cars needing parking in an already finite area. This will mean parking on verges destroying vegetation and intruding on other dwellings lawns. This area already has too many duplexes and town houses and this will essentially push it over the edge. I hope that council is sensitive to the 'reality of what this proposal will result in.

Keep jamming them in shellharbour council.
Right on the main set of traffic lights where in summer people line up back to the round about.
How do people get out of there driveway.
Again it will happen and the people have to put up with the problems of overcrowding.
Your the best planners of ghettos and dumb decisions shellharbour council.

As a local health professional, it is well evidenced that there are many negative health impacts of McDonalds and other large fast food chains, particularly when located in residential areas. I am disappointed to hear of this proposal. KFC has already changed the streetscape and health trajectory of Albion Park - increasing rubbish across the neighbourhood/&Calderwood, and will have longterm health impacts (increases in chronic diseases) for locals. The Illawarra shoalhaven already has some of the most disadvantaged suburbs in the State, and data clearly demonstrates that the health/social/environmental disadvantage is growing between our high disadvantage suburbs and more affluent suburbs. For eg. Large fast food chains aren’t in the more affluent communities - as residents know that this would have poor outcomes. I am truely concerned that fast food restaurants such as McDonald’s are being proposed in any residential areas in the 21st century, with what we know, and a commitment to building healthy cities. They have their place on the existing highway - where there are already many fast food options for those wanting to exit off and get food when travelling. Please don’t allow any future high energy/low nutrition fast food chains in residential areas of Shellharbour, we want to improve the environment for our children to grow up in, and not put them at a disadvantage. It also doesn’t make any practical sense to adding to local traffic in Albion Park.

As a local health professional, it is well evidenced that there are many negative health impacts of McDonalds and other large fast food chains, particularly when located in residential areas. I am disappointed to hear of this proposal. KFC has already changed the streetscape and health trajectory of Albion Park - increasing rubbish across the neighbourhood/&Calderwood, and will have longterm health impacts (increases in chronic diseases) for locals. The Illawarra shoalhaven already has some of the most disadvantaged suburbs in the State, and data clearly demonstrates that the health/social/environmental disadvantage is growing between our high disadvantage suburbs and more affluent suburbs. For eg. Large fast food chains aren’t in the more affluent communities - as residents know that this would have poor outcomes. I am truely concerned that fast food restaurants such as McDonald’s are being proposed in any residential areas in the 21st century, with what we know, and a commitment to building healthy cities. They have their place on the existing highway - where there are already many fast food options for those wanting to exit off and get food when travelling. Please don’t allow any future high energy/low nutrition fast food chains in residential areas of Shellharbour, we want to improve the environment for our children to grow up in, and not put them at a disadvantage. It also doesn’t make any practical sense to adding to local traffic in Albion Park.

The possibility of this plan going through will be greatly beneficial to the community. It will greatly ease the current congestion at Albion park shopping centre, which is, fast becoming an accident waiting to happen. With the amount of residential housing now being constructed in the Tullimbar, yellow rock area. It will be an essential necessity.

We live next door to the proposed two storey, 8 bedroom duplex with single garages. As you see from previous comments our street is very worried about parking. We are a street that takes a lot of pride in our lawns and we don’t want cars parked all over the street. It is a very narrow street with lots of children playing and people walking their dogs. Could the design of this building please be reconsidered.

We live next door to the proposed two storey, 8 bedroom duplex with single garages. As you see from previous comments our street is very worried about parking. We are a street that takes a lot of pride in our lawns and we don’t want cars parked all over the street. It is a very narrow street with lots of children playing and people walking their dogs. Could the design of this building please be reconsidered.

Considering the proposed development of 6 Vines Avenue Shell Cove. I would like to bring one particular matter to your attention which is the consideration of off street parking; I take note of one single garage and one off street parking space which is on the driveway envelope of each townhouse. This appears to be the minimum requirement for council regulating.

Vines Avenue currently has no townhouses, in fact, there are only two townhouse duplex south of Killalea Drive. All houses on Vines Avenue have a double garage or more, including double-width driveways, some have additional parking spaces on the side of their house and or access to the back yards to accommodate their individual needs. This is the result of good planning, development, and collaboration with the council, builders, and owners. It is due to this that the current residences in Vines Avenue are able to have their vehicles including caravans, boats, and trailers parked off the street and on their respective properties which is very fortunate because Vines Avenue is only a narrow street.

Regarding the proposed development for 6 vines avenue which has recommended two-family homes. With a minimum of 4 cars and or other vehicles, this will create congestion at the eastern end of vines avenue. We request that consideration be given to a single home dwelling which will be in keeping with the existing homes in the street. If this is not possible at least a double garage with a double envelop parking to each respective townhouse. This would alleviate congestion and access to residences nearby and stop other cars from parking on the neighbours' yards.

Very concerned over a development at 6 Vines Avenue as there’s no duplex type Dual occupancy in this precinct of residential freestanding homes. Given only I garage with four bedrooms proposed this will no doubt have a direct impact on traffic flow and neighbours and also an rubbish removal. This area has no footpath and a narrow street 2 cars parked opposite would not allow the safe passing of a a larger 3 vehicle therefore could be dangerous to foot traffic and children. This type of higher density development would be suitable in the marina precinct as as a precedent has already been set. A more appropriate dwelling which would be for a single residential dwelling home as per the existing residential homes. The very efficient town planners have already set a precedent for this area and this strategic plan should be maintained.

Absolutely crazy. 3 x3 brm units "little boxes on the hill side" . The energy assessment proves only minimum standards are applied to the build. Prior to build trees were removed or those close by allowed to be pruned - shame shame council - your not following your basic guide lines. You should have stuck to the original assessment. SHAME. Now you have 99% concrete on the building site , no trees no open green areas .The street is already busy and little provision has been for off street parking - amt allowed - thought it a mistake but No its real. Too small unless you own a mini. There will be cars lined up in front causing a traffic hazard near a bend on the road . POOR POOR POOR rating on all accounts. SHAME COUNCIL PLANNERS. Presentation to the street - not compatible, ugly and same same same - these units which are built for less than $400,000 each - ???? more like $300,000 are going to become junk , ghost and prison block builds denigrating the area slum flats.