10 Lambert Road, Bardwell Park NSW 2207

Construction of semi detached dwellings

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website about 1 year ago. It was received by them 1 day earlier.

(Source: Bayside Council (Rockdale), reference DA-2018/237)

24 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Cameron H commented

    One again, strongly oppose this development proposal. This is a hugely controversial development which has been once rejected through Land & Environment Court. The Developer is trying again, who does not care about the surrounding residents or natural environments. He has already been caught and punished twice by Council for trespassing on public natural land without permission while using inappropriate vehicles. As a local resident I am dumbfounded as how Bayside Council is considering to allow this DA to go through again as a separate DA. We will be negatively impacted by many construction workers walking in and out through the street. The parking situation will get worse and there is an already developing house across the street which uses many trucks and vehicles that blocks access to pedestrian parking. The driveway of this property is in a complicated spot and would not fit the required amount of people if new residents move in. Already existing trees within the property which create a very significant habitat for local and native bird life will be severely impacted. The treatment to the reserve is already a concern regarding this development as previously stated they have trespassed with trucks on the council land several times. As stated in the arborist report I strongly object to the removal of all trees on the site. This is a disgusting and shameful excuse of a development that I like many other residents around Lambert Road and Bardwell Park have objected before. And I will object to it again.

  2. Kathy H commented

    How is it possible that this proposed DA is exactly the same one that was deemed refusal by the Land & Environment Court last year still here? The information provided in the description is misleading and does not share all of the information available. Check Documents! This is a very corrupt DA which will negatively affect the neighbours, streetscape, surrounding environment and the reserve which is important for native wildlife and the community. I demand refusal to this proposed DA and do not support it.

  3. Tristan Alexis commented

    Bardwell Park is a R2 Low Density Suburb. How in right's name is this DA deemed ok? I am concerned about the wreckless impact this development will have on the environment and reserve. Bayside Council have already messed up part of the reserve that our great local bushcare group is repairing. We can't afford to lose any more trees in this area, the ones at this property have been here for many years. They are eucalyptus so I have no idea why they are allowed to be taken down. Plus the description as stated before by previous objections to this DA is very misleading and doesn't show the full details. It's exactly the same one that was rejected by Land & Environment Court last year. The property owners show no consideration to the surrounding neighbours and natural environment. REFUSE THIS DA NOW.

  4. Kathy Weston commented

    My biggest concern is if this DA goes ahead (I will be very surprised if it will) that the property owners will damage the reserve via bringing their trucks in and out, which will block public access, interrupt the wild life and cause much inconvenience to surrounding neighbours. When the house at 12 Lambert Road was being built we had the same issue and parts of the reserve walkway got damaged due to the development. These developers at 10 Lambert Road have been desperate for access to the reserve for a long time however they have already lost their privileges as previously mentioned by other users after they have been caught multiple times accessing the reserve with trucks without proper Council permission. It will also be a major inconvenience to have construction workers constantly walking up and down, weather it be the reserve, the walkway, or otherwise. For previous developments the reserve walkway has been blocked off public access. This will also affect our local bushcare group that monitors the area and does a great job of land restoration due to already surrounding developments and other issues clearing. This DA proposes to remove all trees on the site and replace them with only 2. I don't think that this is at all fair. Plus, we will be bothered by hearing the sounds of chainsaws, drilling, and other construction work noise all day long. This is also the same DA that got rejected by the Land & Environment court last year and I refuse this to go ahead, I have no idea how this managed to slip through the cracks for a R2 low density suburb, but it sounds very very wrong. Lambert RD is already suffering from overdevelopment and this needs to stop. I object to this DA .

  5. Alex Hons commented

    The DA here listed is incorrect or misleading. Quoting "Construction of Semi attached dwellings". However if you look on the Documents in the Demolition Plan, the existing one and two story house is set to be demolished with all trees which provide much needed homes for native wildlife and reserve canopy will be removed. This is the exact same DA that was refused by Land & Environment Court with the help of local residents last year. How is this possible that the same DA is trying again? Neighbours will be heavily inconvenienced by this DA and will not only lose a lot of privacy but will also lose the surrounding trees and low density of the area.
    This is a peaceful suburb that will be ruined if construction work is planned. The Acoustic Report shown in the documents does not mean anything as surrounding residents and locals will be able to hear much of the construction noise through the valley as it echoes. How is this possible that a four storey building is able to be developed in a R2 Low Density Suburb. The Survey of Environmental Effects states "The subject proposal has also improved the interface with the public park that adjoins the rear boundary of the site" however this is incorrect, as all of the trees on the property are planned to be removed, which will be even worse for the reserve as we will lose much needed canopy and shade. Plus his fence has not been built for ages and it's severely affecting the grass in the reserve with the neglected backyard brining weeds on the reserve site. I strongly oppose this DA.

  6. Stefan Goslinga commented

    I oppose the proposed DA as many point out it's Refused Land & Environment Court proposal from last year. They seem to be trying to pass off this DA as completely different from the original when it is in fact not. It's the same DA that got rejected previously. The proposed environmental damage is incredibly concerning. These trees should not be removed. The proposed property is too big for a R2 Low Density area. The information is misleading especially with Statement of Environmental Effects and Shadow Diagrams. The neighbours will also lose a lot of privacy if the trees are removed. Bardwell Park is not a city, but it's a suburb. This development is too big. The Statement of Environmental Effects state "The matter has not been the subject of a formal pre DA meeting." however that is not true as it was brought up by many locals who attended the previous Land & Environment court hearing in 2017 which the DA was eventually deemed refused. "The proposal includes the removal of 11 existing trees from the rear of the site." The rear site is the one that backs off into the reserve adding much needed canopy space. It's entirely unnecessary to remove these trees. "The proposal will not compromise the amenity of other residents in terms of privacy, solar access or views." This is untrue as when the trees will be removed the neighbors will lose their privacy and the substantially bigger houses next door will be able to see through over the fence or on the top floor. The house is so big they can overlook into lower residents houses and yards on Darley Road and other sides on Lambert Rd. This is an unwanted development proposal which I object too and I strongly encourage Bayside Council to do the same.

  7. Richard C commented

    I am outraged that this proposed DA is the exact same one that was rejected last year by Land And Environment Court and is trying again by passing itself off as a different development. This is wrong! PlannigAlerts main description is misleading as the developer plans to knock down the existing house, all the trees, and build a 4 storey monster which will be an eyesore for our suburb. I have seen the documents as shown by the other commenters and the information here is misleading. The original DA from this around a year ago is still on Planning Alerts with the information of it being removed. You can't pass this off as a separate DA. It's the exact same plans from the same company trying again after they got rejected the first time! I demand this development application to be rejected again and I strongly encourage Bayside Council to think against supporting this development since it's too big for a R2 Low Density area.

  8. Theo Schrock commented

    I am strongly against this development proposal. The information provided here on this DA although claims "Construction of Secondary Dwellings" it is in fact the same DA that was refused last year by both Bayside Council and Land & Environment Court. I also believe that the surrounding residents were not properly notified about this development trying to come back by sneaking through the cracks. It is indeed corrupt. This is too big for A R2 Low Residential Area. It will be an eyesore. The community will not benefit from this development at all. The documents shown on this site raise many questions and concerns. I refuse to support the removal of so many native trees, the reserve canopy has already been damaged by surrounding development issues or over-clearing. The bushcare group do an excellent job of fixing up the reserve although it would be heavily impacted by trucks moving up and down from the supposed development which have been eyeing to use the reserve but will inconvenience both the local residents and the wild life that is very important to the area as they have already been caught several times using truck without permission and trespassed by damaging council property before such as entrance bollards or grass and soil with truck and Tyre damage. Plus the surrounding natural environment will be negatively impacted throughout this development. I seriously advise Bayside Council to reconsider supporting this DA and I feel it should not be built in our suburb.

  9. Sam Berrigan commented

    To whom it may concern, I am against this development proposal for 10 Lambert RD, Bardwell Park. Bardwell Park is an R2 Low Density Area and this planned 4 storey nightmare will be too big for the area. It will also impact severely on the surrounding canopy of the reserve and low lying Bardwell Park suburb. The info on the DA states "Construction of Secondary Dwellings" is not the full story. As many have pointed out their concerns it is exactly the same DA from the same property, made by the same people that was refused by both Bayside Council and Land & Environment Court last year. How dare they think about trying again. Nothing has changed. It shows that these people have no consideration to their surrounding residents or the natural environment. The amount of trees (Which are native) that they are planning to remove is outrageous and should not be allowed. The reserve is already suffering enough as it is. I have looked at the documents and the research (If you want to call it that) that I have seen for them are very worrying and raise many questions, most of it is based on loose and unjustified evidence. Why is the DA not showing the full story, you need to see all the documents to understand it's exactly the same refused DA as before. Many of the trees in the property are very large and provide much benefit for the neighbours and local wild life and if the trees would be removed it would also lower surrounding property values. Like many I am also worried about the developers bringing their trucks in the reserve, they have already been banished from doing so after being caught illegally several times last year and damaging council property. If the carelessness continues it will still be the same result, the reserve and surrounding neighbours will also get negatively impacted. It will be a nuisance for the residents to have developers constantly walking up and down and are worried about the reserve access being blocked off to the public as it has had done so with past developments which damaged the concrete pathway. Also, the development notes state surrounding properties were notified. However, I was never notified and had to find out about this DA trying to come back thanks to a friend who also wasn't properly notified. Surrounding neighbours will also lose much privacy from the tree protection. There is also a house being developed across the street which constantly blocks public parking access as there are so many trucks in the street. The community will not benefit from this DA at all. In conclusion, overall the impact of this development will be nothing but negative and I object to it strongly. Please understand that it's EXACTLY THE SAME ONE that was refused last year. It needs to be refused again. Thank you.

  10. Aaron Gallant commented

    I oppose the development application to this address. The proposal of this nature will be too big for Bardwell Park as many have stated its a R2 Low Density Area suburb. The property adjoins with a public nature reserve looked after by many great locals. It's also home to many Native Australian wild life, such as Magpies, Currawongs, Grey Butcherbirds, Tawny Frogmouths, Rainbow Lorikeets, Noisy Miners, etc. If the amount of trees are said to be removed many of these animals will lose their homes which these trees that are native provide much benefit for both privacy reasons and natural habitat for wild life. It will also severely impact the characteristic of the suburb as most of the houses in the street are low. Like many have stated in previous comments I am angry that it's the exact same DA that was rejected by both Council and Land & Environment Court last year that is trying again with absolutely no changes. We are also concerned about the negative impact the proposed development will have on the adjoining reserve. Not just with the outrageous proposed removal of all trees on their property but it will be frustrating to have developers and construction workers moving in and out all the time. Many of the surrounding neighbourhood properties will also be negatively affected by this development. Properties alongside Lambert RD and also Darley Road will be straight in the middle of all of the construction work which not only will be frequent but will be very disturbing and annoying. These people have been keen to sneak trucks into the reserve which is a natural bushland corridor and not meant to be used for developmental truck access. It's meant to be accessed for council to mow the lawns or for the bushcare group to perform ongoing maintenance ... this will be a very disruptive development if it will go ahead. I don't see how it should because it's the exact same one that was rejected last year. This is a very peaceful area which will become interrupted if construction work begins which will inconvenience the neighbours and reserve. So I don't see how it's even trying to come back again. I am very much against this development proposal. I am hoping whoever responsible for looking at these DAs does not approve of it. Thank you.

  11. Chris Peers commented

    I show full opposition towards this proposed DA. First of all, the Documents state that surrounding properties were notified. However our property was not. Also, as many point out it's the exact same DA that was refused by both Bayside Council and Land & Environment Court last year. The fact that the same people are trying again is showing absolutely no consideration to neighbours or the surrounding environment. The DA is incredibly destructive and will, like many other DAs are the area before which back on to the reserve, impact it negatively. The last few times last year they were caught bringing trucks up and down illegally and lost their truck access privileges. These developers are still keen to use trucks in the reserve and if the development goes ahead there will be nothing but trucks, construction workers and developers moving in and out during the day which will disturb residents and get annoying. The amount of native trees asking to be removed is unthinkable and should not occur. These trees are native and should not be cut down. It will of course affect the canopy to the reserve, privacy of the neighbours and native wild life that live in them.
    I question the plans on the documents too. Lambert Road is a tiny street however with this DA the property will be too big for the street, as Bardwell Park is a R2 Low Density Suburb. Also, why does the Drive Way show that it points to the left only when it is in fact not a one way street. The drive way looks too small for the amount of cars expected while other diagrams appear to be misleading as well as the description of the DA to begin with. The planned structure of the building will overpopulate our suburbs instead of causing sustainable living. There is an ongoing development just across the street with trucks moving up and down all the time on the road and parked in the street already causing much inconvenience to surrounding residents. If this DA was refused once before, I encourage The Planning Authority to refuse it again. This type of small suburban area is not fit for these sorts of large DAs.

  12. Bernard Sharah commented

    I wish to lodge my objection against the current DA for 10 Lambert Rd, Bardwell Park. I would like to know how Council could accept this as a 'new' DA when it is substantively the same as the previous one which was rejected by the NSW Land and Environment Court. When a development application is rejected by the Land and Environment Court it should require the applicant to make changes which address the problems inherent in the original DA. This hasn't been done. The proposed development is considerably out of scale within the existing low density environment, it will entail the removal of a number of trees and will generate more traffic and congestion.

  13. Gillian Bennett commented

    I would also like to lodge my objection to this proposal. With very minor changes to the original DA sort previously which we know was rejected by both authorities it is disappointing to see the developer has again failed to address the issues raised by the local community and the authorities. The removal of so many trees located on just one property is unacceptable they provide a much need part of this environment. These trees were established over 60 years ago to my personal knowledge, most being in excess of 10 metres in height.
    The proposed structures will also impacted heavily on the surrounding residence blocking natural light, creating excess demands on the local infrastructure. There is insufficient off street parking for residences of this size and parking in the area is already difficult.
    This proposal again needs to be rejected. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

  14. Nick and Gina Bek*** commented

    We would also like to add our objections to this proposal. Its is difficult to accept that the developer has failed to address any of the issues raised during its previous reviews and rejections. It is totally unacceptable for the local environment to be impacted by the loss of so many native trees which are very old.
    The developer will again seek to use the native reserve as access to this site and this cannot be allowed again. As previously mentioned the land owner has used and damaged the reserve, whilst failing to maintain his own property in a correct manner.
    The overall development will impact heavily on both the community, environment and existing over strained infrastructure. This proposal will see much of the existing local residences to loose their access to natural light but above all their privacy.
    Please listen to our community as a whole and their raised objections when reviewing this application. Thank you N & G.

  15. Jake Clark commented

    I would also like to object to the proposed development application. The applicant has tried again to send this DA through as a different DA but not much is different about it. It's the exact same structure with the exact same buildings that we all opposed to last year to Bayside Council & Land And Environment Court. It shows they have no consideration to the neighbours or surrounding environment. Neighbours on both sides will lose their natural light, and privacy as an unreasonable amount of native trees, that are also quite mature and tall, which also provide shelter to many native animals and birds that use the reserve and yards of people's in the area, will be affected negatively if they are lost, the hill side canopy of Lambert RD will also be negatively impacted where a large gap will be once where all the nice trees were and it would not look nice for the area. The grass in the native reserve is just growing back from the last time the owners were caught illegally taking trucks through the reserve. The soil was severely damaged and it took ages for the grass to grow back as it was damaged by the heavy tyre marks from them driving up and down moving those bricks inappropriately hundreds of times. The concrete pathway has also been damaged due to the heavy amount of times their trucks would go up and down. Assuming if this DA is trying to come back they would try to lodge permission for truck access to the reserve again, even though I heard they were stricken from their rights to use trucks in the reserve after they were caught multiple times without council permission from a year or so ago. The reserve isn't even built for this kind of development that will be affected as there is already difficult parking on the top of the Lambert RD side. Pedestrian access also will be affected. The adjoining reserve is for nature and recreational purposes and is not meant to be used as a short cut access for developers. The property owner is not doing a good job of maintaining the current property as well, with reports of failing wires, security flaws and rubbish dumping, as the original property and back yard is sadly being neglected. If the development still occurs how can you trust them to continue to monitor the property if the current one is continuing to be neglected by the land lord. I strongly oppose to this DA and refuse it to go ahead.

  16. Arthur Schrock commented

    Lambert RD is a small street with very limited options of Car Parking spaces. However I believe it's not meant to withstand such large development as this proposed DA. Considering it's 4 storeys how will so many cars from this location fit in the street when the drive way only looks like it supports 2 cars or less, depending on the type of car. As previously mentioned by other concerns, most houses in Lambert RD are either 1 or 2 storeys. Bardwell Park is a Low Density area suburb, so a building of this height and size should not be permitted.
    I also object to the proposed amount of trees to be cut down. The leafy surrounds of the Bardwell Park suburb attract locals and visitors. The trees are also homes to many native wild life and are also quite mature trees which seem to still be in great condition. It's always nice to see the tree canopy in the yard while walking through the reserve that many animals such as birds, possums and fruit bats use as their homes. It will be a terrible loss for the community and wild life if all 11 trees in the property would be cut down. I am also worried about the developer's access to the reserve as he would most likely try to gain access to the reserve with trucks - however he has been caught illegally multiple times before hand using trucks in the reserve without permission. After being caught from council more than once they have lost their privellages. I would not want them to access the reserve with the trucks again. The grass is just growing back from last time they damaged it. The bricks in their property were all transferred illegally during this matter while they were driving up and down hundreds of times, the reserve pathway and soil is not built for this kind of access in the first place.
    Neighbours will also be heavily inconvenienced by the likes of developers, trucks, vehicles, and noise from the ongoing process, however the owners already neglect the current property. I do not trust them with running the new property since the original home is being maintained improperly by the land lords, who are also still using the property for rent. It will be a shame for the neighbours and wild life if the development goes ahead, Surrounding neighbours on all sides will also lose their privacy from the tall structures and removal of trees. I strongly oppose this DA.

  17. Cameron Hons commented

    I've been told from the occupants of this property that despite previous rejections from Bayside Council and the community plus Land & Environment Court the house is still going to get knocked down, the approvals have been finalized and impending in the next couple of months. There has been no confirmation from either planning alerts or Bayside Council so I am not sure whether this is true or not, but they seem very persistent about it. If the house has approval for being knocked down, what will it be replaced with? And most importantly, how will the surrounding reserve be impacted throughout the development? These are concerns that I strongly encourage Bayside Council to investigate. Thank you for reading.

  18. James Marsh commented

    I am not in support of how many native and mature trees are proposed to be removed on the property. The site backs onto the biodiversity area Lambert Road Reserve, and the canopy surrounding it would be seriously affected by the setback of tree removal. I do not understand how the proposed development complies with tree preservation, if all of the trees on the site are removed, except for the one in the front street, as claimed in the Statement of Environmental effects. What benefit will this have to the neighbors privacy and surrounding environment besides being an absolute disaster. Removing these tall mature trees that are crucial for native animals homes with small ground covers is not a sensible nor appropriate solution to keep up with environmental demand in the area.
    The owner of the property has continuously failed to look after the current property within unreasonable living conditions with including of the loss of electricity, security and overall safety on the premises. He should not be trusted to go forward with these development plans.

  19. Todd McDonnel commented

    It is a shame that this development is trying to come back for its amended plans after it being rejected by Bayside Council two times and Land & Environment Court once.
    Although I give credit for them fixing up the design of the back yard, the overall structure is still the same with no effort to change it after previous rejections or L&EC meetings.
    This development will threaten the community & reserve that it backs on behind it.
    We will still lose a few trees in the yard that are all native and mature which animals use as homes and neighbours use for privacy.
    I am also concerned that they will once again try to use the reserve to bring trucks through, which I strongly recommend council to refuse.
    I am not a fan of the building's proposed design which is just a regular shoebox type structure, and if it will be painted white, there will be a lot of reflection from the walls in the sunshine that will be a nuisance to others, especially if the property is planned to have a metal roof.
    The property I believe is too big for the street, and does not look at all appropriate.
    I hope Bayside Council thinks twice about this development and listens to the community's ongoing concerns about this issue. It's a shame the developer keeps trying to send it back, despite previous rejections.

  20. Tory Hemis Williams Brown commented

    I oppose to the current amended plans for DA-2018/237.

    The building is too high for the proposed landscape in our area. Just because it is situated against a hill doesn't mean it should break boundary and height regulation rules.

  21. Zadyd Mudandio commented

    I object to the current Development Application's Amended Plans. How is it possible that this developer is allowed to send changed plans through after DA-2018/237 was Refused for DA's only by the previous officer.
    The building itself has not changed which identifies he is not listening properly to the community's concerns. The fact that the developer continuously sends submission after submission through clearly states he does not care about what other people think and is being disrespectful to the surrounding neighbors.
    There should be a limit for how many times an individual developer is supposed to send a submission through even if it is for Amended Plans which haven't changed much, it's disappointing.
    As a representative of the community, I refuse to support this Development Application's Amended Plans and I hope that Council listens to the community's concerns and refuses it also.

  22. Tristan Hons commented

    I originally objected to this DA in 2018 and I would like to object to the amended plans again. The amended plans change little of the structure except a slight height modification which still is unacceptable.
    Bardwell Park is a peaceful suburb and the development will interfere with people's daily lives as the property also backs on to Lambert Road Reserve and we would not want the developer to be bringing trucks through again during the development process.
    It's also important to keep the trees in their yard as they are mature and native which provide much space for the canopy and neighbour's privacy.

    The statement of environmental effects claims that neighbours will not lose any privacy due to this development but if the trees will be cut down they would lose a lot of privacy and natural light.

  23. Tom Adamson commented

    Bayside Council need to be very cautious when dealing with this Developer. The amended plans have not changed much about the initial proposed building. For a large scale development such as this Lambert road is such a small corner it would be tricky to navigate around with overheight trucks and concrete moving about, and would disrupt the neighbour's lifestyles and especially will interrupt parking space in the street for a long period of time.
    We encourage Council to also refuse their access for the reserve as its meant to be for community to enjoy, bushcare groups and the lawn mower and not for large trucks or trucks with oversized tyres that damage the grass and soil.

    Developments like this will threaten the surrounding community and environment.

    Overall, I oppose the amended plans and do not support this development proposal..

  24. Brian Costelloe commented

    I don't support the development proposal's amended plans. This property is too big for the suburb. The property next door (12 Lambert) had to comply with Council's height restrictions, and is only 3 stories, so this property should not be exempt from those laws.

  1. Have you made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee? You may need to disclose this.

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

  1. We never display your street address. Why do you need my address?

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts