28 George Street, Thirroul NSW 2515

Residential - demolition of existing building and tree removals. Construction of multi unit housing comprising of four (4) dwellings with one (1) level of basement carparking - Re-notified due to amended plans

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website 11 months ago. It was received by them 9 days earlier.

(Source: Wollongong City Council, reference DA-2019/595)


Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Jo Glynn commented

    Has Council considerede the impact on traffic of this development? Not only is this turning a 1-block house into a 4-unit dwelling, it will produce more than 4 times the amount of traffic for this incredibly traffic-locked suburb.

    If every house in Thirroul/Austinmer decided to follow the rules of Council's DCP, and turn their single dwelling into a multi-dwelling, either via granny flat/units/dual occupation/torrens-strata title then there will be permanent grid lock.

    There is a tipping point for traffic, and Thirroul/Austinmer have reached this tipping point. This development must be considered as too much traffic impact and should be refused.

  2. Jane Coburn commented

    Traffic increase must be added to standard council deliberations on DAs in this congested suburb. We receive very high traffic volumes on weekends from tourists, as well as serious peak hour traffic from residents coming from McCauley's estate and local housing. Thirroul must be passed through by residents further north if heading to Wollongong or Bullli Pass.
    George St is right in the middle of this mayhem, and Thirroul has seen numerous DAs where a single dwelling is turned into 2, or 4 residences. Each DA is assessed on it's own merits, there does not appear to be an overarching plan for managing congestion in 2515. It is the single most talked about topic for residents.
    So I object strenuously to this development, the street and surrounds are full of character homes and this will change this for locals. Traffic. Traffic.Traffic. This will decrease amenity for everyone.

  3. Tom coburn commented

    Keep Thirroul as a nice coastal town not an extension of Sydney. We don’t need more units and the traffic situation is bad enough already.

  4. Lisa Smith-Silk commented

    There is townhouses approved in Pass Ave Thirroul, another development in High Street Thirroul approved for 10 blocks, 9 of which can be subdivided. Pass Ave is a narrow street with high volume traffic already to bipass the Lawrence Hargrave gridlock. Common sense needs to prevail,

  5. Debbie Eady commented

    Getting ridiculous already have to queue to try and get out onto Lawrence Hargrave Drive now because of congestion need a set of lights at George and Philips street nobody wants to let you in as they queue from other direction as well.

  6. Phil Burn commented

    Developments such as these is getting beyond a joke. There is another one going in on pass ave.
    Traffic iis getting seriously dangerous, and council will be held responsible.
    The proposed development is in a spote that will significantly increase traffic using a lane that is shafted by vehicles and pedistrians, including young kids walking to school.
    If a council rep sits and watches this lane of a weekday morning and afternoon, they will quickly see that further development here is a major issue.

  7. Martin Gorrick commented

    Surely it is time for residents to find out where our Ward 1 councillors stand on issues like adverse impacts of overdevelopment on traffic congestion; amenity of residents; and destruction of Thirroul's unique village atmosphere. If the existing councillors squib on the issue then don't vote for them. If someone wants to stand for Ward 1 at the next election - on a platform of moderated development which respects the existing streetscapes and acknowledges the crippling traffic congestion these new medium density/multiple dwellings impose on the Ward 1 precinct - then put your hand up so we can vote for you!

  8. Janine Brown commented

    It's irresponsible to continue to develop in this street when there is such a lack of infrastructure. There isn't even a footpath on George Street after the first two blocks. I pity school kids trying to navigate the verge - you can't, it's a mess so you have to walk on the road. Due to the huge number of cars already parked in the street you need to walk right out into the lane of traffic. Ideally all children this close to the school should be able to walk to school but it is quite dangerous. There is also only Kelton Lane cutting across to Lachlan Street (a shared access way) which is already congested a lot of the time and is directly in front of the proposed development. The congestion at the intersection of George and Philip Streets is also ongoing, with drivers so intent on getting through the intersection that they often aren't paying attention to the pedestrian crossing. People cut across the taxi/bus restricted zone to beat the queue - pretty dangerous as that's where the kids wait for their bus. Strenuously object to more development.

  9. Jeremy Park commented


    I find the revised plans offer little in the way of addressing the previous problems with the rejected previous plans as determined by the WLPP. The issues that are of concern are numerous and have only grown with the new DA for 28 George St. Where some small improvements have been replaced with new larger issues.

    1. The applicant suggests they are 3 bedroom townhouses whilst the BASIX and cross section AA notes that infact there are four bedrooms. I will consider there are 4 bedrooms as per some of the plans. We all know the "study" listed in some of the plans is the 4th bedroom. Seems like a slip up to have noted it correctly as a 4th bedroom in some of the plans. Maybe the void can become the study?

    2. The "void" is a paper thin accounting trick to comply and shows the ingenuous intent to build to the code. The developer has used 4 reasonably sized voids to avoid issues with FSR and BASIX. Upon being built, we all known the voids are opened up for use. Ask anyone in the industry. There is no design sense in having "voids" in key areas of the house and so large when otherwise the plans are for a build pushing to an inch all other limits. FSR and BASIX would fail with voids counted... which they should be.

    3. The BASIX scraps through the 50 point requirement. Numbers entered in the BASIX seem to be wrong in some areas. They suggest a roof space of 458 sqm for water catchment. To fill the 800l water tanks. If each unit is roughly 70sqm per floor, even with eaves and the slight angle of the roof 458 sqm seems large. 4 x 70sqm = 280sqm + angle + small eaves. "void" not counted. Needs clarification.

    4. They are lowering the natural and existing ground level in order to comply with the height limits. Otherwise the plan would push them above the limit. They are asking for a setback allowance at the front to accommodate the bulky design. I would say that lowering the verge this much for the basement driveway will make it a pedestrian hazard.

    5. The plans are for a 3 storey building in a R2 zone. Since the garage is partially out of the ground at the front and would technically count as a floor. Three storeys are not allowed within the code DCP B1 5.2.2 Further analysis on rulings here needed.

    6. Without rubbery numbers the FSR fails.
    a: They have not counted the void in each unit which is ingenious.
    b: The FSR calculations use a garage floor area 42.7sqm, they have allowed for 36sqm allowance of the garage, however this only leaves 6.7sqm which seems small for the rest of the level. Maybe there are more "allowances" here?
    c: They have used all 3 levels floor space to get the large patio areas to comply to 25% of floor space. Without the basement, which I think woudl be unallowable in the code, this would not work. Have they counted the balconies?

    7. The previous determination from the WPLL address the overall bulk of the design. We now have 3 storeys, lowering of ground level and still the plans are close to height limit. The FSR suggested to be just under 50% is similar the last plan. So the overall bulk has not been addressed, and has in fact increased considering the extra storey. Neighbours should be concerned for their loss of natural light, privacy and where the previous plan had a driveway on one side the building is now closer to them. i.e it's wider.

    8. The previous determination from the WPLL asked the developer to address the character of the development to be consistent with the existing and future character. The new plans do nothing to address this. They mention vinyl cladding. Vinyl cladding is not in keeping with the area nor desirable. The roof is a slightly pitched skillion roof not reflecting the pitched roofs found in the area. The colour scheme is grey upon grey which a dreary modern trend and not in keeping with the village look and feel. As some other building materials are not specified exactly it is hard to comment further, except to say this maybe my only right of reply and I understand them to be modern and not reflecting the majority of the area. As mentioned in the developers EIS there are indeed a few modern examples in the street that aren't in keeping the area, however they should not be regarded as the benchmarks to aim for, but rather as lessons to not repeat.

    9. The general amenity is not good for the proposed inhabitants. Having 12 or perhaps 16 bedrooms on the block is overdevelopment for the block. The rear garage has no turning circle and it would only be possible to reverse out, down the interior garage ramps past other driveways which would be dangerous. The visitors parking can not be a turning circle also. The BASIX is passed by massaging the numbers and adding possibly the smallest water tanks (800l) possible. Air Conditioner for winter and summer would be required as they all over shadow each other and the opening in the middle will not be a desirable space in constant shade. The overall design is not making use of the suns position making it both in-efficient and with poor amenity.

    10. The area has many natural springs and massive amounts of under ground water passing this area. This is why there are 2 paperbark trees outside the property. Number 20 has water constantly weeping through their concrete driveway and the new development up the road where they dug a basement garage was constantly flooded during construction and has ongoing issues. There is underground water which is not accounted for. When they disrupt the under ground water the effects will be numerous and pose a threat to the paperbark trees and the neighbouring trees and properties. They need a geo-tech and arborist report into this accounting for the known issues and sub ground drainage plans that will satisfy not disrupting the natural landscape around them. The drainage report only seems to account for above ground water.

    11. Many people are concerned about the extra traffic having 4 x 4 bedroom townhouses will bring. I understand they can't be personally responsible for the all traffic issues on George St and the area... however, they are building a multi unit development and driveway exactly opposite Kelton Lane. A lane which might seem insignificant, however offers the only route in and out of the area if (and when) the main exit is blocked. Most residents now use Kelton lane to go through to Pass ave to bypass traffic issues in the area. Kelton lane often has 3 cars facing off to work out right of way, so by adding a multi unit development directly across from the lane makes it a 4 ways for the future residents of 28. Kelton lane is an issue which needs to be addressed by planners with any multi unit development at number 28. They will also be entering from a higher angle which would add to the complexity for exiting with pedestrians. A footpath study was carried out by council and might be worth correlating its findings with this DA.

    Overall I see no improvement to the design as small wins in some areas are replaced by other issues. The intent of the developer is to make money by building as much as possible on the block at the cost of amenity to the future inhabitants and local residents. Every measurement is pushed to the limit to make it comply by a whisker whilst I feel many of these numbers are rubbery or erroneous. I am not a developer, building or town planner, so please excuse any errors in my interpretation. It takes a lot of time for local residents to read plans and understand some the complexities of larger and demanding developments in R2. There are already 5 multi unit developments on George Street which satisfy low income housing, so there is not an argument that we need a mix of housing in the area. Nearer to transport, public space and on a larger block would be more appropriate for this design.


  10. Hillary family commented

    I object to this DA on a number of grounds. Quite simply the developer appears to be trying to force as much into the lot as they can to the detriment of the suburb, neighbourhood, current residents and even the potential residents of this lot.

    - 4 townhouses is too much for the site. The only way they can hope to achieve this is by going 3 story which is not right for the area or lot in question.

    - The design is out of keeping with those around it. The rooflines in particular do not match and the orientation of the housing is not street facing unlike the rest of the street. The proposed height also appears to negatively impact the surrounding neighbours.

    - The driveway access and ground level manipulation will create further pedestrian and traffic hazards with the site being opposite the heavily used shared pedestrian/vehicle single lane Kelton Lane. George st itself does not have adequate provision for pedestrians with no footpath on either side past Soudan street. This development will likely push pedestrians onto the road at a junction.

    - The overall impact to traffic congestion must be considered when reviewing a plan to turn 1 abode into 4x multi- (3 or 4) bedroom ones. With the high volume of these types of submissions coming through it is simply untenable to continue to shirk responsibility for the cumulative impact.

    Overall this development application appears purely focused on maximising the developers profit at the expense of everyone else and as such should be refused.

  11. Jennifer Martel commented

    • I feel the plans have many inaccuracies highlighted by the first image on the EIS showing the sun coming from the south. There are rooms labelled as study on one plan and then labelled as bedroom 4 on another plan. It's hard to see all the dimensions in order to check they have totalled up floor space accurately.
    • The garage floor plan shows no turning circles and seems impossible for the 4th garage driver to drive out in a forward facing direction. The visitor parking is not a turning
    • With the amount of kids walking to and from school on the road due to the lack of footpaths it seems unsafe to have more traffic entering and exiting onto the road opposite an already busy laneway.
    • The overall design is out of character for the area
    • The sheer size of the development proposal is not sensitive to the existing strains on the street.

  12. Trudy Simpkin commented

    I have lived in this area for 23 years. I love it and one of the main reasons why I love it is because it is an area that is surround with great streets that aren’t over populated with townhouses and apartment buildings. I really don’t want to see the local streets change into that.

  13. Rebekah Donaldson commented

    I object to this development for a variety of reasons but most notably that it is significantly out of keeping with the character and feel of the area. Thirroul is reknowned for its “village style” lifestyle, such a development is at odds with the nature of the area, as the panel itself noted last time.

  14. Paul commented

    I think if you modernising a building and increasing the population density of our community then you need to take this opportunity to reduce the impact on our environment and future proof it's overall design.
    Why isn't there a foot path in the plan? The developer should be installing this as part of the approval process.
    Why is the energy rating so low on a new dwelling 5.4. It should be a minimum of 8?
    Where are the clothes lines or other options for naturally drying clothes? Four families of four, all forced to run clothes dryers.
    Where are the solar panels? Why isn't it mandatory for high density building design?
    Now would be a great opportunity to install fibre to the premises. Why isn't that mandatory.
    Are the developers held accountable for the tree selection and layout as per the plans? There appears to be know tick in the column for the certifier check in the environmental section.
    I am shocked by these short falls in modern building design and can't support this poor proposal.

  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