PlanningAlerts

7 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

1. A registered club is not permitted on the site under its current zoning RE1. The development application is reliant on using existing use as its basis to have a new club premises built .

   Under Legislation existing use can not be used to if the site has been abandoned for 12 months. The licence for the club expired more than two years ago and neither management from the previous bowling club nor the applicant paid the approximately $600.00 to continue the use. The registration has been permanently cancelled and can not be reinstated .

   The club has not been registered nor used for over 24 months which is more than twice the amount of time mentioned in the legislation.

   Therefore council should not approve this development application as it is not permitted under the zoning and the club has been abandoned for more than 12months

2. 11th September 2019

   Bayside Council

   Re Development Application DA-2019/286 - OBJECTION

   I wish to lodge an objection to the DA 2019/286 on the following ground:

   • Council role is to determine the development application under the legislation.
   •
   • The development of the property as a registered Club is not permitted under the current zoning,

   • The Bowling club, when it was operational closed bar services most nights by 7.00pm with the exception of Friday nights when it occasional closed at midnight.

   • The premises have not been used as a club for in excess of 2 years and therefore have been abandoned,

   • Under current legislation “Without limiting the generality of subsection (2) (e), a use is to be presumed, unless the contrary is established, to be abandoned if it ceases to be actually so used for a continuous period of 12 months.” The registration lapsed more than two years again, and has not been or been able to be used as a club.

   • Applicant’s report shows this to be the case.

   • The club registration expired in July 2017 – more than two years ago and notwithstanding that this development relies solely on existing use rights for the approval to proceed as a licensed club – no effort was made to ensure that the Bowling club remained registered. The fee in the vicinity of $550.00 was not paid and the registration has been cancelled permanently.

   • The applicants claim for existing use rights is not valid.

   Notwithstanding that the existing use claim is not valid:

   • The development is excessive and not in keeping with the local street scape

   • The development goes against the conditions made by the Administrator that the lease must meet community expectations. The roof line at its maximum height is in excess of stories which is evident in the locality,

   • Traffic conditions have not been adequately addressed for the proposed number of persons.

   • We do not want any functions to be permitted in the area above the proposed basement parking as the issue of noise in this area has not been addressed in the submission,

   • The hours of operation are excessive in a residential area and are not appropriate in the locality, and certainly not in keeping with hours kept by previous club.

   • Public transport, particularly at night, is insufficient to cater for the proposed number of people that will be leaving the premises after functions making driving to and from the venue the most likely mode of transport,

   • The site sits in a gully creating a nature acoustic area making it problematic and difficult to contain noise – particularly given that functions can be held outside until the late hours of the night. This has not been addressed in the report as it does not show the typography of the area.

   • The Statement of Environmental Effect extensively covers the issuing showing that the club was registered for a considerable time in relation to the club registration and confirms that registration lapsed on 25th July 2017. Liquor and Gaming NSW (Ph. 1300 024 720) advise that once the licence has lapsed it is “permanently cancelled and cannot be recovered”. Council role is to follow the legislation as written and clearly the club was abandoned by both the deregistered Bowling Club management, and the applicant.

   • The development is vastly different to the draft proposal lodged by AHEPA at Tender Stage and resolved by council on 20 April 2016 and presented to the community. The development is almost twice the size as was previously presented and is excessive.

   • The SoEE page 23 confirms that the proposed development will be in part, approximately 3 Metre above that of the surrounding area and is not in keeping with the street scape nor appropriate to the area.

   • The function of the proposed development is not appropriate to a low-density residential area but rather more to the area where it is currently located away from low density housing.

   • The existing floor area is 783.65ms and the proposed development increases that by almost 85%. The ratios shown in the SoEE report are extremely misleading as if compared the Residential ratio of 0.5:1 for a residential lot to 0.2:1 for the site of the previous club NOT the individual lot.

   • The existing structure of the previous club was in keeping with the streetscape and was abandoned and left derelict to strengthen the applicant’s case to increase the development. The proposed development is far in excess and not compatible with the surrounding mid-century housing.

   • These is no evidence in the proposal that it will have economic or otherwise impact on the economy of the locality. The approval of this large development will adversely affect the value of properties in the area and employment generated to date for this development has been not just outside the locality but outside Bayside Council entire area.

   • The development is excessive and not designed to be compatible with existing development in the area.

   • It is not in the public nor the local residents’ interest. It is however just in the interest of the applicant, with a long association with council, obtaining a liquor licence to carry out commercially viable functions under the umbrella of a previous but now deregistered and abandoned bowling club.

   • Applicants have no experience in running a registered club.

   • On the basis of items listed above the development should not be approved.

3. Hidden by site administrators

4. As a resident for the past 14 years, this is exactly what the area does not need. If anyone knows Bexley North, especially the area where the bowling club is situated, it is a QUIET residential area. I can not imagine the noise pollution that will come about from this development, not to mention an excess number of people being dispersed onto the streets in the early hours of the morning. This is an obvious over-development in a low density residential area. If you can imagine this development to be acceptable in your area, feel free to have the proposed development moved to your locality.

5. I wish to lodge an objection to the DA 2019/286 on the following ground:

   • The Bowling club, when it was operational closed most nights by 7.00pm with the exception of Friday nights when it occasional closed at midnight.

   • During operations till 12 mid night many times noise could be heard from a block away especailly events with Dis

   • The premises have not been used as a club for in excess of 2 years and therefore have been abandoned,

   • Under current legislation “Without limiting the generality of subsection (2) (e), a use is to be presumed, unless the contrary is established, to be abandoned if it ceases to be actually so used for a continuous period of 12 months.” The registration lapsed more than two years again, and has not been or been able to be used as a club.

   • Applicant’s report shows this to be the case. the club registration expired in July 2017 – more than two years ago and notwithstanding that this development relies solely on existing use rights for the approval to proceed as a licensed club – no effort was made to ensure that the Bowling club remained registered. The fee in the vicinity of $550.00 was not paid and the registration has been cancelled permanently.

   • The development is excessive and not in keeping with the local street scape

   • The development goes against the conditions made by the Administrator that the lease must meet community expectations. The roof line at its maximum height is in excess of stories which is evident in the locality,

   • Traffic conditions have not been adequately addressed for the proposed number of persons.

   • traffic control and calming devices are not fit for purpose currently, let alone with this development.

   • car parking is difficult currently and development does not have enough parking for site visitors

   • local area is truck free yet if allowed then truck deliveries will be the norm for the local streets

   • The hours of operation are excessive in a residential area and are not appropriate in the locality, and certainly not in keeping with hours kept by previous club. residents bought houses based on 7pm closure not a late night trading hub!

   • Public transport, particularly at night, is insufficient to cater for the proposed number of people that will be leaving the premises after functions making driving to and from the venue the most likely mode of transport. cars leaving will also increase nosie and air pollution

   • The site sits in a gully creating a nature acoustic area making it problematic and difficult to contain noise – particularly given that functions can be held outside until the late hours of the night. This has not been addressed in the report as it does not show the typography of the area.

   • The development is vastly different to the draft proposal lodged by AHEPA at Tender Stage and resolved by council on 20 April 2016 and presented to the community. The development is almost twice the size as was previously presented and is excessive.

   • The SoEE page 23 confirms that the proposed development will be in part, approximately 3 Metre above that of the surrounding area and is not in keeping with the street scape nor appropriate to the area.

   • The function of the proposed development is not appropriate to a low-density residential area but rather more to the area where it is currently located away from low density housing.

   • The existing structure of the previous club was in keeping with the streetscape and was abandoned and left derelict to strengthen the applicant’s case to increase the development. The proposed development is far in excess and not compatible with the surrounding mid-century housing.

   • The development is excessive and not designed to be compatible with existing development in the area.

   • On the basis of items listed above the development should not be approved.

6. Clearly, the amenity impacts of the proposed development need to be carefully considered. Particularly the suitability of the site for the proposed development.

   Concerning elements of the proposal that I encourage Council to adequately consider and respond on, include:
   *Overall suitability of the proposed development in its current form, for the site, given the character and low intensity uses of the surrounding lands, which is in conflict with the proposed intensity of use and the built form of the proposal.
   *Likely noise impacts from the proposed development and the ability to avoid or adequately mitigate them. I strongly encourage Council to commission, or request the applicant to commission, a consultant of Councils choice, to undertake an independent peer review of the noise report, to determine the accuracy of its findings and adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures. I would also encourage Council to condition any approval with a stronger restriction on the hours of night-time operation to 9pm, which would be more suitable given the locality context of the site.
   *Whether the loss of open space and recreational opportunities is deemed appropriate.
   *The cumulative impact of the proposed Stage 2 to this development should be adequately evaluated (for all matters) at this time.

7. I note a letter on file from the applicant dated 28th May 2020 noting that the none of its members reside within the notification area for the development. The proposed over development of the site WILL NOT impact any of the applicants members but will take adversely effect the amenity of the local community.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Bayside Council (Rockdale). They may consider your submission when they decide whether to approve this application. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment