PlanningAlerts

176 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

1. We are excited to hear that the shop fronts are getting some much needed TLC and appreciate that the design is working to keep some of our gorgeous escarpment views but 82 residential apartments is a ridiculous amount for a suburb that already has major traffic issues. We don’t need this amount of apartments in thirroul. Please help to protect our small town.

2. The plaza is very run down and needs a major upgrade, and to this end, the plans are great. I do feel that 82 units is too many in an area that doesn’t have the infrastructure to deal with the amount of cars it will bring. LHD is a car park most weekend, and a further 160+ vehicles will exacerbate the problem. Major changes need to be made to the access in and out of thirroul before such a large development could go ahead.

3. The plaza is definitely in need of renovation. But 82 units. No thanks. The traffic is at a stand still on the weekends so much so that I don’t even take my car out. What are the plans for traffic management?

4. No thank you to 82 appartments... very happy for a commercial refurb and redevelopment. However, absolutely unnecessary for increased residential development. Traffic logistics are real. We are all here for a small town village feel.

5. I echo the above concerns regarding the inability for Thirroul roads to cope with the added pressure that will come from 82 new apartments. Without proper thought and development of infrastructure, BEFORE introduction of potentially 100+ cars into an already congested area, Thirroul will not cope.
   The plaza commercial space is in need of a renovation and will benefit greatly.

6. While I would be more than happy to see the plaza given a facelift 82 apartments is FAR to many to add to the area.

   Compounding that and more importantly, we have TWO of the best live music & entertainment venues in the area right next door. If this development was to go a head steps MUST be taken to prevent residents from complaining & getting Beaches or Anita's music curtailed and early curfewed. We constantly see when people move into these sorts of living arrangements with full knowledge of the late night noise situation only to complain about it afterwards and have our precious venues destroyed.

7. While a new plaza is most welcome in Thirroul and will improve no end the existing structure, 82 apartments are far too many. This will impact vastly on the traffic in and out of Thirroul which is already far too busy not just at weekends but throughout the week as well. In addition, the current facilities such as schools cannot cope with increased numbers.

8. I absolutely welcome the redevelopment of the plaza and the attraction of commercial business into the area but the development of 82 apartments is concerning. Traffic is already an issue (and something I thought Wollongong Council was focused on) therefore to introduce high density living will only compound this situation. Thirroul is a village and the gate way to the Northern suburbs of the Illawarra. The development should pay homage to the heritage and essence of the area and I fear this proposal would lead to Thirroul becoming an overdeveloped coastal suburb with its charm and community spirit stripped bare.

9. The development of the shops is much needed bit the addition of an 82 residential apartments is far to big for the area. I currently dont go into Thirroul on the weekends as the traffic is so bad. The traffic in and out if Thirroul needs to be addressed before adding this complex. Totally not throught through!

10. Many thanks for your consideration of our comments as residents and owners of property in Thirroul. While the redevelopment of the plaza will bring much needed business to the area, we all feel that 82 apartments in an otherwise low density area is excessive! The current infra structure (road,rail) was not designed for a development of this magnitude and I’d jot in keeping with the current architecture, density and overall feel of our town. Please advise where formal objection can be filed and contact details for legal counsel submissions and objections from our solicitors.

11. Thirroul is a beautiful village that is unique to the northern suburbs of Wollongong.
    The area has developed at a rapid rate over the last 20 years.
    The population of residents and the popularity of weekend travel has impacted on local movements.
    While this brings much needed income to the area it also brings other issues which are well noted.
    Apart from this we have a wonderful village with fantastic venues that need to be preserved.
    The plaza upgrade would be welcomed, however the town will not be happy with this development in full.
    It will definitely destroy what the town is , a Village like no other that need not change for the sake of development.
    Please keep values of residents paramount.
    Thank you Chris Stuart

12. Would be great to see a facelift on the plaza, but adding 82 residential addresses is a terrible idea. Our streets are congested as it is, and no doubt some of the new residents would complain about the noise from our beloved live music venues. This has not been thought through enough. It is too much for our small town.

13. I envisage the development of 82 apartments would put significant strain of our already burdened transport infrastructure; road, rail and parking. I believe most residents would welcome the refurbishment of our ‘single level’ plaza in keeping with the village feel of Thirroul. One would suspect that two levels of underground parking would only accommodate the residents of 82 units.
    This development it too much for a small town.

14. Whilst the shop fronts getting a makeover is great and much needed the residential plans are ridiculous! There is already a major problem with traffic and don’t get me started on parking. There is also the problem of people making noise complaints about the live music that happens at the pub. Jose Jones already has been closed down. There’s not many places to go already. Don’t ruin our town by putting an ugly building up.

15. 82 arpartments in Thirroul have a look at an already congested traffic flow over populated town that if there was a state of emergency and evacuation we would already struggle as there is only one road in one road out this would absolutely cripple this beautiful coastal town and I am disgusted that in such a small town this could even be thought of. I say hell no.

16. Thirroul is already a nightmare to drive through on weekdays.. It often takes us 20 minute just to get from Bulli pass to Austi public school.

    Atop this, beaches hotel is very close to this development and is sure to be negatively affected by noise complaints due to live music and people exiting etc.. Which is unacceptable, given they’re one the of the few really good live music venues left in the area.

    Building 82 units here is a terrible idea purely due to congestion in the area, but if it goes ahead one would hope that there’s some sort of ruling in place to force them to soundproof effectively & not cut corners.

17. I agree that that the plaza is in dire need of a major facelift and development but seriously an extra 82 apartments. That's an extra 164 cars (and that figure is conservative) on an already over congested road. There are no other plans in the near future to open up any other thoroughfares in or out of Thirroul or Austinmer to ease the flow on LHD. yes to a new modern shopping plaza, no to the apartments

18. Here we go again!!! Yes yes the shop is in need of an upgrade agreed! But the thought of an 82 resident complex is just plan ridiculous. You don’t have to be Einstein to understand that Thirroul is ALREADY under immense pressure regarding traffic/parking issue with no sight of a solution to fix the problem? So yeh let’s whack up 82 new units!! Give me a break nothing but greedy developers trying to line there pockets Without any other thoughts for the community .. Seriously you’d think commonsense would prevail on this..

19. The plaza looks nice, and it really needs to be updated.

    The major problem is fitting 82 units with parking for 2 cars per unit. The current 1.5 cars per 2 bedroom unit is not sustainable in the Northern Illawarra. Lawrence Hargrave Drive can hardly handle the amount of traffic it currently has, especially during peak hours and weekends, and with only 1 road in and out of Thirroul, the public danger level is extreme.

20. I echo the above concerns regarding the inability for Thirroul roads to cope with the added pressure that will come from 82 new apartments. Without proper thought and development of infrastructure, BEFORE introduction of potentially 100+ cars into an already congested area, Thirroul will not cope.
    The plaza commercial space is in need of a renovation and will benefit greatly.

21. Redevelopment of the Thirroul plaza should be the priority, not creating 82 apartments as it is going to place a significant burden on an already busy and congested suburb. We need new retail stores with adequate parking and I understand that there needs to be "some" residential apartments to make this viable but 82 is more than the community can support. I am also concerned that a building this size will not be sympathetic to the beautiful village feel of Thirroul and it will block out the stunning views of the escarpment. I am not anti-development but please put community ahead of profits and don't replace one eyesore with another.

22. The Thirroul Plaza definitely needs a new structure to replace the current outdated model, however 82 apartments is 82 too many for a suburb that is already under serious traffic constraints and congestion, furthermore where Wollongong City Council and the RTA are yet to provide a plan to ease the current congestion...

    PLEASE PRESERVE OUR COMMUNITY

23. The developers are depicting that adding 82 residential apartments to an already congested Thirroul center will only add an additional circa 32 vehicle movements in peak times this seems disproportionate.
    The addition of a signalised intersection on King Street and Lawrence Hargrave Drive will not improve the traffic flow when the traffic modeling indicates that up to 1600 vehicle movements currently in peak hour through the intersections on the main road of single divided carriageway is only going to cause more congestion to an already struggling road network.
    The swept path for the prime mover turning left into King street shows that it projects into the travel lane of the oncoming traffic when making the turn, this issue has not been addressed in the design submission.
    The land is zoned for commercial use and this should not be amended to incorporate an additional 82 residential units until the road infrastructure in and out of Thirroul has been significantly upgraded.

24. The reason people love Thirroul both to live in and to visit is because of its sleepy seaside village feel. High density living would greatly impact that atmosphere. I have lived in the Northern Suburbs for 20 years and have seen Thirroul slowly become busier and busier. Over the last nine years I have lived in Woonona travelling through Thirroul to take children to school and to go to work. When I moved to Woonona I timed my commute to Thirroul. It was six minutes on average. Over the last nine years due to increased development the commute has changed to seventeen minutes on average with some weekends taking almost half an hour! Apart from the obvious inappropriateness of a high density apartment complex within Thirroul village, the amount of cars this would add to already existing traffic congestion would cause a great deal of inconvenience and in certain circumstances danger to locals and visitors. An upgrade to the plaza without the housing would be welcomed by many.

25. Agree that the plaza needs to be upgraded, but strongly disagree with 82 residential apartments in that space. Traffic in Thirroul and surrounding suburbs is already a major issue, this development would only exacerbate the problem.

26. It is hard to argue against the development when using the economic assessment study provided as your basis as to why... what does not seem to be included in any of the provided assessments is the qualitative impact to the region and our community.

    The Plaza is well overdue for redevelopment and the proposed redevelopment looks very sympathetic to the heights and architectural surroundings.

    We are all very concerned about the additional 564 AM peak hour, the 555 PM peak hour and 734 weekend vehicle movements given the already chaotic traffic congestion that occurs during ALL these times between Austinmer and Bulli. Proposing one additional set of traffic lights, positioned at the intersection of LHD & King streets ,will not alleviate any of this congestion. In fact I suggest it will adversely contribute to longer delays, longer traffic queues increasing the resentment towards this development.

    What meaningful solutions does council propose to stop turning the northern beaches into one continuous carpark? Because without better traffic management solutions this development only offers a negative impact.

27. THE issue is access and traffic movement; and from Bulli north onward. With the failure to deliver the long planned alternative access (through the "Cookson's" site) to Thirroul being the major bottleneck - the current single access two lane rail bridge is 20 years past its used-by-date!

    Wollongong Council and the RMS have simply not given the resolution of northern suburbs access and traffic movement the priority it has long deserved!

    While the plaza project is a significant single development, it is relatively minor in the context of the overall growth in the density of housing in the northern suburbs, which has been steadily driven by the year-on-year increase of the multitude of smaller scale and "mum and dad developments" - secondary dwellings, dual occupancy's and the like.

    The evolution of residential development in the northern suburbs, like everywhere else, will continue; it needs to, if housing supply is to just keep up with demand.

    What clearly is isn't happening, is the critically required infrastructure planning and investment by the Council and the RMS - and that is where the venting here should be properly aimed, if change is to be achieved!

28. Although I am in favour of the redevelopment of the plaza, the residential units will place enormous pressure on an already overburdened traffic infrastructure. I haven’t seen a realistic plan for managing the extra traffic yet.

29. Will we still be able to see the escarpment? Or will the third storey obscure it ? I feel that the view of the escarpment is an important part of our identity and heritage and should be maintained

30. There is no capacity for Lawrence Hargrave drive to accommodate this many new units with extra cars going in and out of the area. Do not approve of this unless government/council provides another entry / exit north from Austinmer and south from Bulli pass, which is near impossible - so just don't progress it! Add a maximum of 20 units. Lawrence Hargrave Drive wasn't designed for this many cars, you will be further ruining the area unless you provide another access point. There is enough local tourism to the area on the weekends making traffic worse, there is little economic benefit to adding 82 residents to this area, other than a developer making bank. Not only that, but they will also complain about live music.

31. Definitely time for the plaza to be upgraded, but just upgraded.
    82 units is far too excessive for a small town with one road access.

32. I welcome the upgrade to the Thirroul Plaza, especially the additional parking. The inclusion, however, of residential units is a huge mistake. Traffic congestion in the area is already ridiculous. Until the existing bottleneck into Thirroul and further north is fixed, it would be negligent to include more high density housing within Thirroul.

33. Hello,
    Whilst I am in total support of the upgrade, modification for better use of space and modernisation of the plaza the introduction of additional residencies seems out of order in terms of general upgrades to the suburbs roads. The current roads already do not support current traffic needs. I have lived in the areas all my life and I have recently chosen to move to the other side of Bulli pass just to avoid traffic so I can get to work faster although I need to travel regularly to visit my family in Austinmer and each time I drive through Thirroul it's a struggle and can sometimes take up to 45mins. Introducing more people and more cars will just add to the congestion of the area. Unless this traffic throughway is sorted additional housing should not be considered, it's only logical and this should be done in an appropriate order so it's done properly to avoid future issues.
    Regards

34. As wonderful as a refurbishment to the plaza would be, I'm shocked and very concerned by the proposal introducing 82 residential apartments as part of the project. This would have a tremendous impact on local infrastructure, which already suffers significant congestion. I'm also concerned around how introducing high density housing in our small local township will influence the culture of the coastal village.

35. The addition of apartments is a grave mistake due primarily to the unresolvable traffic problems facing existing residents of and visitors to this lovely village. I object, and urge council to consider alleviating traffic problems before considering increasing density.

36. Presently the plaza in question fills the community need. I do agree an upgrade of the existing amenities would benefit the community. I strongly oppose the additional 82 residential units as the existing infrastructure is already inadequate to support the present community. Presently emergency services are impacted which directly effects the rate payers of the district let alone all visitors. Public transportation has not grown in relation to the growing community and traffic is not facilitated. The other facet of the argument is keeping in line with the environmental needs and small village community. It would be truely disgraceful to sell out the local community in order for developers to make more money. As a local I already experience delays going to work ( public transport is not an option) and as many locals experience on a weekend need to add a minimum of an extra 30 minutes to get from Thirroul to the beginning of Memorial drive on weekends to attend kids sporting events. I cannot imagine how this will be successful for the local community as traffic is already impeded let alone if a car accident happens.

37. Traffic around the plaza is already a nightmare, 82 units will lead to increased delays, frustration, accidents and loss of revenue for local business.

38. Update thirroul plaza, defintely.
    Include 82 units, which effectively means increase number of cars to about 160, and an additional set of traffic lights, no way.

    Traffic is a huge issue already in thirroul, we already have 4 sets of lights in thirroul, don't add to this chaos more.

39. It is so sad to hear that developers and the WCC would even consider the proposal of 82 units and more traffic lights in the area. Thirroul is a beautiful village and is fast becoming a mid city suburb. After living here all my life, it is very sad to see the rapid change in what was once a beautiful seaside town. Traffic is already ridiculous in the area in particular on the weekends. Beaches Hotel which is in the same block, is a great pub and live music venue, and has operated successfully for as long as I can remember. This is a commercial area and definitely not one for apartments. I can see the Hotel being shut down like many other places because new people come into the area and complain about noise. Let's try and retain the beauty and authenticity of this very special place.

40. Traffic is a major cause of frustration and angst thus far. Before Council approve this or it goes through the Land and Environment Court which will override Council, how about we solve the safety issue with traffic. Lots of talk about this over the years - no action though people. Everything will be fine till there is an accident and the whole area is gridlocked. Remember, one road in and one road out - this extends to fire, ambulances etc, plus all of the local residents and now an extra 82 apartments. 82 extra sets of rates that the council receive which will be of no benefit to the people of the northern suburbs, it too will end up in West Dapto, along with all the other money being channelled from Council. The Plaza definitely has seen better days and needs some love - so a big 'yes' from me for that one. Has Scotty from Marketing been involved here.? ..c'mon Scotty, even Pauline could see straight through this one :)

41. Looks dreadful.
    This is is how it goes - the site needs a redevelopment, but the developer won't bother unless there's a $20mil profit in it.
    How is that done? High-density, low-quality, poorly-sited, residential units.
    First thing the new residents will do? Complain about the live music coming from a nearby venue.
    Thirroul locals get? Nice new shopping mall with franchisees (aka indebted shop-keeps), traffic issues, and money heading out of town.
    Capitalism at its finest. Where's the council on the future-vision for this one?

42. The shops defiantly need renovating but 82 residential apartments is far too many. There is already major traffic issues. Please help to protect our small town.

43. Thirroul plaza does need and upgrade and this looks great. However the 82 units of varying occupancy is just too much. Thirroul doesn't need more cars. The traffic flow is terrible at the best of times. On busy days locals can't find a parking spot to do their shopping. All these 82 units will do is increase congestion and put more pressure on local roads resources and schools.

44. As per other responses, a revamp to Thirroul plaza is welcomed but not at the cost of 30 pieces of silver, being 82 additional dwellings on this site. This highlights the bigger issue of the inadequacy of council and RMS’ response to the current traffic congestion in the northern suburbs, which centres on Thirroul. A comprehensive traffic flow strategy needs to be implemented to alleviate the already poor traffic flow before further developments that increase residential or commercial density in the area (whether it is this one or others) could ever be considered. Simply adding yet another set of traffic lights is not an adequate response.

45. Developers do this all the time they over design their development hoping to get what they want . Wollongong council will be looking at the rates from 82 units without providing any updates to the area govn and developers are only interested in the money they don’t care about people or the impact they cause hopefully people power will prevail

46. This proposal does focus us once again on the traffic and infrastructure issues that have been ignored for years. Many public meetings and requests for feedback, traffic monitoring, in the past have not led to any concrete action to alleviate the growing problems in Thirroul. It was good to get the flyover over Bulli Pass.
    New councillors seeking election and State members alike have sounded like they are listening but once again no action on the Thirroul access and traffic management issues, just more traffic lights!
    Time to ask our representatives again to coordinate and demand the council to prepare a comprehensive traffic management plan and options for our town.

47. The Plaza definitely needs a refurb, but additional apartments would only add to the traffic problems and as others have said no doubt impact on our great live music venues.
    Yes to the refurb, no to the apartments.

48. I fully support a redevelopment of the shopping centre as Thirroul Plaza has been in need of modernisation for many years. However, the area cannot cope with any additional residents as LHD is simply not able to accommodate for any more vehicles and certainly not a development with 82 apartments and over 100 cars. Wollongong Council needs to resolve the congestion on LHD before it approves any new houses or apartments in this area. The current situation presents a serious risk to the lives of local people and visitors in the event of a serious accident or emergency.

49. Arguably the greatest concern here is traffic congestion. Beyond inconvenience associated with travel delays, there is a legitimate safety risk. Thirroul only has one road out, and this is already at breaking point (following all the recent developments, Macauley’s estate, Brick works estate, etc). If faced with a disaster (for example a major bushfire in the escarpment, which is forecast for the near future), there is a high risk that lives would be lost because people can’t evacuate quickly. In a resultant enquiry, councillors would surely be held accountable for approving large developments (that compounded existing safety issues) without ensuring essential infrastructure was first in place. At very least, there would be value in assessing whether a bridge over the railway at the back of coles (or off King street) could be constructed, with a view towards allowing residents in southern and western Thirroul to access the township without using the main artery. This would be an inexpensive solution. Joining Mountain rod to the service road on the western side of the railway behind coles would also be feasible. This would also provide connectivity to Bulli pass in the event of a situation where people need to evacuate quickly. Please be sensible with your decisions and planning. Our unique community relies on you to do the right thing. What happens to Thirroul impacts all of Wollongong. Kind regards.

50. It's very sad to hear that WCC and developers would consider 82 units in an area where traffic congestion is already a huge issue.
    On weekends, it can take up to 3/4 of an hour to get from Coledale to Thirroul.
    82 units will not help the local economy. Loss of revenue for local business is already apparent, as there is minimal parking and major traffic congestion making it easier to bypass Thirroul.
    We also have 2 of the best live music venues in the Illawarra which bring in not just locals but overnighters to the area which has to be great for local economy, so what a shame it would be if new unit buyers decided to whinge about the noise causing close downs or restrictions to these venues. Unfortunately, this seems to be a common theme in the Northern suburbs.
    Yes, refurbish the plaza, it should have been done decades ago. But don't put 82 units there.

51. YES to the redevelopment of the commercial premises which are in desperate need of renovation.

    However a big NO to the additional 82 residential apartments. The area already cannot cope with the current traffic levels and the addition of 82 further apartments will only worsen the existing traffic issues.

52. Completely agree with everyone else, yes to the re-development of the commercial premises and a no to the 82 units.

53. The vast majority of respondents are supportive of a new plaza but concerned about the traffic impact of 82 new units. As I recall, Transport for NSW is undertaking a review of traffic in the Thirroul area, and received an enormous amount of input from local residents. Surely it would make sense to await the outcome of that review, and any recommendations made to address the traffic flow problems, before a decision is made on whether any apartments are appropriate in the proposed new plaza, and if so, how many might be sustainable.

54. Wouldn't it be nice if rather than a developer lodging an application and residents lodging complaints or arguing whether the proposed eyesore is better or worse than the eyesore that its replacing we could instead have a discussion about what our community imagines it's future to be, and what it should look like, and then we worked out how to get there. Imagine if local architects and urban planners were allowed to give us their ideas for a village space instead of some outsider hoisting a shovel ready plan by numbers development on us. Imagine if we all bought shares in that development and took ownership of our village centre. We don't need another shopping centre or overpriced apartments. Maybe we could have rent controlled or rent to buy apartments for essential workers, maybe we could give a unit to the guy sleeping rough at the Plaza for the last two years, maybe we could have a cinema or an artspace....we certainly don't need another supermarket. The LEP doesn't do this...all it does is provide some mild hoops for developers to pass through. I really think it's time we 'occupy' development....

55. I agree with Thirroul Plaza getting a facelift, but that is really all that is needed, parking is huge issue for Thirroul currently, and with a number of medical professionals operating on King Street where will people (especially the elderly and those with a disability) be able to park? How will they access King St?
    A development of this scale is completely out of character with the area and in my opinion totally unnecessary.

56. This is the best DA for our area and love the ideas but like everyone else the number of units being allowed for of 82 units seems way too many, especially as there will be only one floor above shops. Need to look at the traffic in the Thirroul area... before any DA approval!

57. Ray Smith Wollongong council what are you thinking shops yes apartments no

58. Traffic is a huge concern. Plus there are a number of other developments happening in Thirroul that will add to the already straining traffic. Development on LHD near bread and espresso , development on George Street. The beloved Gables is also due for development, I fear all by the same developer!!! That’s going to be an extreme number of extra apartments in the next few years and only one road through. Thirroul cannot cope with the traffic. It is a snails pace as is. 82 apartments is not doable.

59. I totally agree with all comments above. We do not need more shops (a refurb would be nice though) and certainly do not need more apartments while we have an ignored and worsening traffic flow problem not helped by inadequate public and active transport options. I also think that the developers deliberately put in an outrageously oversized development application and will come back with, say, a 50 odd apartment "compromise" that we are all supposed to then be happy with accept. I'll be opposing that when it comes too.
    I also recall the enormous amount of input from local residents on that RMS survey website last year. The most commented things on that rms survey? No more traffic lights (!!) and deal with traffic flow. Is anyone in council paying attention??
    Finally, I'm with Matt Wall-Smith .."I really think it's time we 'occupy' development...."

60. while the plaza is in dire need of a revamp, parking and traffic is already terrible. 82 apartments will only exasperate the problem.

61. 82 apartments ! It is already congested enough as it is. This would also change the whole look of Thirroul it is a town not a city apart from leading to noise complaints and parking issues

62. The potential residential aspect of the development is going to exacerbate current traffic and over populate an area already sufficiently populated. It will change the face and feeling of a highly owner occupied area in the northern Illawarra , all of whom do not want this to be pushed through , the rate payer and citizens should be aloud to have there say against developers who are looking for high yields at the cost of changing the feel and value of existing owners homes in the area. It will be a precedent and no doubht more will follow with density skyrocketing in a fringe landscape below the escarpment which cannot sufficiently handle the influx and spikes in population growth . I strongly disagree with the proposal in all aspects.

63. I strongly oppose 82 additional appartments in Thirroul (indeed, ANY additional housing) without an adequate solution to the traffic problems on LHG.

    While I believe there shop fronts could be refreshed, I would not like a big new mall complex to replace the existing plaza (as, I understand, is currently under consideration). I would prefer to see this occupied by local, independent businesses.

64. 82 apartments in a small village with buzzing nightlife and already congested roads. Development of the plaza would be wonderful, but the impact on Beaches and on Anitas Theatre is a concern for me. As is the impact on the traffic and the village atmosphere of 164 additional cards on the roads

65. Redevelopment of the shops and cafes is welcome progress. However building 82 units in a suburb with major traffic issues is rediculous. Thirroul is a small coastal suburb with one access road in and out, it is not designed for high density living.

66. Thirroul and the Northern suburbs in general cannot cope with any more residential development. There is only one road in and out and on weekends the road is a car park. Make the development reflect the sensitive nature of the site i.e. a small coastal village and consider the amenity of the people who already live here.

67. I strongly oppose the development of the current Thirroul Plaza Area. Yes the current plaza may appear outdated to some, to others it ensures a balance between the new, the old, and interesting character of Thirroul. Thirroul has experienced a significant Increase in residential development, primarily with the subdivision of existing house blocks. Resulting in traffic and parking congestion.
    82 apartments in the centre of town is too big a development. These apartments pose a threat to our communities fabulous live music venues nearby
    This development is not reasonable or in keeping with the character or feel of Thirroul.

68. It’s become increasingly difficult & frustrating to get through thirroul at any time of the day. The shops need a facelift yes, but more units -no! Most people that move to or visit here come for the beauty, the coastal town feel. Not high density units & shopping. We’d be better to invest in our many artists & makers to add to this truly original area. It’s why the festival is so popular. Not high density living right in the centre of town! It would be impossible to get out of king st let alone progress along LH drive. And Beaches Hotel, which I noticed marked as ‘future development’ (they might want to ask the owners first) along with Anita’s theatre are part of the fabric & history of this town - units alongside these venues? Would we lose live music & shows too?
    Essential services such as schools & doctors surgeries are all under pressure with recent surge in population. This development has been poorly thought out in terms of the area, what the community need & want & the limitations of the area.

69. A face lift to the plaza is a welcome idea. 82 apartments however are not realistic for this suburb. The infrastructure can't hold that many new dwellings, not even with some major work to LHD.
    Thirroul's appeal is in its small coastal town feel - a development this size will destroy that. Think 10 apartments of you must, and bike lanes and beach/station shuttles.

70. Shops redevelopment a YES but residential apartments NO
    I was born and bred in Thirroul so have lived here my whole life (58years) and have seen a lot of changes in that time some good and some not so good the amount of apartments being considered is way to many the overdevelopment of Thirroul is causing this beautiful town atmosphere to be destroyed traffic congestion is a major concern the council definitely has to look into another road in and out through either McCauley's beach estate and sandon Point estate which was on original plans for both of those estates in the planning also the schools doctors supermarkets parking in town will not cope with the increase of people and cars. Residential homes this close to Pub and Anita's will be detrimental for these venues as the residents will complain about noise even though they would know before moving in that they are there. There is already examples in our town where this has happened. If this was to go ahead these people moving in should be made to sign caveat that they will not complain about living next door to Pub and Theatre.
    PLEASE WCC think about infrastructure before considering this proposal for the sake of your highest paying rate payers.

71. Perhaps the plaza could do with an upgrade, but PLEASE reconsider the plan for 82 apartments. This is an extraordinary amount of additional cars to add to the traffic gridlock in Thirroul. The character and appeal of the northern Illawarra has already been sorely diminished by overdevelopment and the resulting traffic problems. Please don't degrade it further by adding 82 extra apartments in the centre of Thirroul. The nature of the landscape (i.e. the finite area between the escarpment and the coast) should clearly dictate planning. Thirroul, and the northern suburbs, simply cannot cope with more residential development or cars.

72. The current plaza is old but functional for the local community needs. A refurb would be fine if done with low impact, however 82 units is ridiculous. This not only adds significantly to current traffic issues on LHD but also a three storey building is out of character with the area. Also the impact on Anita’s and Beaches Hotel live music would be of huge detriment to the community. No thank you.

73. Thirroul does not have the infrastructure to support this level of development. Any development should be sympathetic to the environment and the needs of the local community.

    In no way is building 82 appartements in the best interests of the community. Traffic is already gridlocked on sunny weekends.

    And what if our live music venues? Will new residents be complaining about noise despite buying in knowing the venues are there? This has already happened all over Sydney.

    We love our community. It’s a great place to live which is why people want to move here, but adding this development could destroy the reasons people want to live here.

    Development needs to be reasonable, considerate, and sympathetic to its location.

74. The introduction of additional dwellings of such magnitude is unnecessary and certainly over-development. Parking is a major problem already in the shopping area and surrounding streets. An upgrade of the Plaza is a progressive step, however, the area is too small for the additional dwellings that are being suggested. Please reconsider your plans for the sake of the Thirroul community and future generations.

75. As stated by everyone else, the building does need attention. There is no argument there, but building 82 apartments will have detrimental consequences. Part of what makes Thirroul so magical are the music venues which will be the neighbours of these 82 proposed units. There will no doubt be noise complaints once people move in. In addition, putting that many units in an area with so little space, horrendous traffic issues and facilities that are already at maximum is not thinking about the consequences for the community, nor the 82 new residents. For example, from what I understand, our local medical centres are already not taking new patients, the trains are crowded for weekday commutes and the traffic is at a standstill on weekends. Putting lights at that T-intersection will do nothing to alleviate this. Traffic lights are needed at Henley road and LHD. Sadly, it just seems like a project that is more focussed on profit than community.

76. Until Wollongong City Council addresses the traffic problems in Thirroul no additional housing, especially high density should be allowed.
    With only one way in and one way out of Thirroul this is a disaster waiting to happen. If the Northern suburbs had to be evacuated in the case of a bushfire thousands of lives would be at risk. Does the council want to take responsibility for that?

77. This complex is definitely in need of a renovation but to add 82 apartment, their cars, visitors to a village that is already struggling with traffic every weekend is ridiculous. I’m not a posed to development but let’s not destroy the village feel.

78. The plaza absolutely needs a facelift, it leaks and just looks completely rundown. However we have already seen a live music venue close due to complaints (Jose Jones- and while there were issues with approvals the original complaints were absolutely about ‘noise’ and ‘behaviour of patrons’. Put in apartments and Beaches and Anita’s will be gone. Why should the residents lose out on facilities bc some developer would like to make a mint?

    Seriously 82 apartments? Anyone in their right mind can see that that number will destroy the suburb. I invite the local council to take a trip up LHD and try to get anywhere fast. Or better still try to find parking. Adding in at least another 80 cars into the mix on an already ridiculously overrun road is madness. And as for adding in traffic lights? Please come and sit at the bottom of Phillip street on a weekday morning at the lights and see if you can get out and onto LHD within 19 minutes. Refurb and a single story of apartments, perhaps 10, for sure. 82? Will show just how swayed by money this council really is

79. Shop upgrade YES. More traffic with appartments NO. An accident closing the bridge is chaos waiting to happen NOW. With more traffic inevitable.

80. New shops, yes. More cars on road, NO. It’s a no deal.

81. I agree that the plaza is in need of an upgrade, but the thought of any residential apartments horrifies me. The traffic in and out of Thirroul is already a nightmare, parking and general transport is currently an issue. How is this small town going to cope with an influx of people throughout the construction phase (shutting down LHD) and then through to completion, with residents and their visitors!!.
    Don't over develop this beautiful coastal town!! Upgrade the retail and leave it at that.

82. Having read the Traffic Report concerning this development application it appears it was done during the Bush Fire period and traffic would of been less than normal. It also indicated that Lawrence Hargrave Drive has three (3) lanes, which is incorrect it has two.
    It also suggests moving bus stops and changing parking in Lawrence Hargrave Drive and King Street. All of these have a major impact on pedestrian flow, traffic management issues. The Wollongong Council and RMS currently have no management plan to overcome the traffic flows on LHD or any alternative routes. The Emergency Services have expressed there concerns about the inability to respond to major incidents in the Northern Suburbs due to grid lock of traffic through Thirroul. The summer period turns LHD into a parking lot. The development of 84 units is absurd as there is no infrastructure to support the development.

83. I feel the development of the northern suburbs, such as that proposed for the shop fronts in Thirroul exciting and proactive for the residents and visitors of the area. However, the addition of 82 apartments to the development is one of the most thoughtless and abhorrent proposals I have even come across. The current traffic gridlock from Hospital Rd Bulli through to Thirroul is evidence of poor planning and neglect to the existing residence of the area. First and foremost, the access in and out of Thirroul and surrounding areas need to be amended. It is the duty of care of the council to ensure that safety is considered in planning of suburbs and new developments. If an emergency was to occur in Thirroul in peak hour or any time on the weekend, I believe the current road situation would make it a challenge for the services to access the area in a timely manner and would risk the lives of the people in the northern suburbs. 82 new apartments does not keep with the feel of the area, nor will the road infrastructure accommodate an additional 120 ( and most probably more) cars on the road.
    The proximity to schools will make this an additional safety management issue.
    If this development is approved after all of these concerns from myself and the others, it would beg question as to whether community engagement is taken seriously or is this a 'lip service' stunt to appease the masses. This development should not go ahead and careful consideration to any plan amendedments should be heavily scrutinised with independent traffic management assessments.

84. 82 residential apartments will have a detrimental impact to the coastal village feel we wish to preserve. High density living is not appropriate due to the significant traffic issues already experienced in the immediate area. Even introducing a revamped shopping area without the residential dwellings will increase the traffic to the area and need consideration. The roads just can’t support this number, and we are not interested in turning it into multi-lane highways, so efforts must be taken to reduce, not increase, the flow of traffic.

85. A brand new shopping complex will bring huge issues alone WiTHOUT the addition of huge numbers of apartments.. presuming no way 82 but certainly some mad number. This developer should be absolutely ashamed to walk our streets. What on earth will become on our township... think Gold Coast. Currently there is no parking and the surrounding roads are choked on weekends. Ground water appears on the surface after long stints of rain and they are suggesting underground parking??? Wear a wet suit shopping. I trust the council which stands to gain much from this will make a decision based on all the current laws and rules applicable and in the best interest of the local community of rate payers who have chosen to be here for its unique qualities.Please don’t let greed overcome amenity!

86. YES to the redevelopment of the commercial premises which are in desperate need of renovation.

    However a big NO to the additional 82 residential apartments. The area already cannot cope with the current traffic levels and the addition of 82 further apartments will only worsen the existing traffic issues.

87. While the time has certainly come for this development to occur, 82 apartments is far too many. The traffic that will come along with this will have too much of a negative impact. It is already hard enough to head into Thirroul as a local to get essentials in a pandemic with the amount of traffic, never mind with an extra 82 apartments during peak hours when Thirroul comes to a stand still. Please reconsider the number of apartments that are being built.

88. Shops redevelopment YES - but 82 residential apartments a big NO!

    This proposed overdevelopment in Thirroul would cause our beautiful village atmosphere to be destroyed. Traffic congestion is also a major concern. Parking at the schools, the Medical Centres and IGA will not cope with the potential increase of people and cars. Residential homes this close to Beaches Hotel and the beautifully restored Anita's Theatre will be detrimental for these venues. We fear that residents will complain about noise, even though they knew that the venues are there before moving in. There is already an example where this has happened. If this development with any residential content was to go ahead then the new residents should be made to sign a caveat that they will not complain about living next door to the Pub and Theatre.

    The council still has to look into another road in and out for McCauley's Beach Estate and Sandon Point estate as per the original plans for both of those estates in the planning stage.

    PLEASE WCC think fully about our infrastructure before rubber-stamping this proposal - act in the interest of the existing residents not the developer!

89. I also agree with the above concerns regarding the inability for Thirroul roads to cope with the added traffic that will come from 82 new apartments. Perhaps a smaller number of apartments could be considered to make this a financially viable scheme - say 20? However The plaza commercial space is tired and definitely in need of a renovation and will benefit greatly.

90. Alongside many of the existing comments, I agree 82 apartments should not be approved without infrastructure solutions in place, especially around traffic. It will detract from the positive village atmosphere of Thirroul and surrounding suburbs. There is limited space betseen the sea and the mountain so the planning should respect this fact and prevent density increase without infrastructure.

91. I strongly disagree with this proposed plan. The scale of the project and number of additional apartments is unacceptable and would significantly impact on congestion in our local area. We would greatly appreciate a more sensible and acceptable proposal.

92. Thirroul has only one though road and 82 new apartments will bring the already heavy traffic to a standstill.

93. I am happy that the Thirroul Plaza is receiving a facelift, as it is rather tired and unappealing. This site has so much potential! I wish that the planning committee would be more artistic and creative with its plans. I would love to see ground floor shops, restaurants and bars.
    Above I would love a roof top cinema, pop up market space.
    I do not think Thirroul needs apartments. I think our community wants space and their own yard. We do not want to turn into a Sydney suburb, please let us remain regional.

94. The plaza upgrade, while needed, is a smoke screen for the real agenda here - its about the residential component, designed with complete disregard for the heritage, safety and logistic constraints of this community.
    This proposal is totally out of scale for this suburb. How many units/cars/people can we take in this already congested area ?

    Putting traffic lights at King St does nothing to alleviate the horrendous traffic conditions already experienced here.
    Residents in suburbs north of Kennedys Hill will start using the back roads to avoid LHD, creating a backlog along Redman Ave as they compete with cars exiting the proposed development to turn right onto LHD.
    As stated in the traffic plan, the development expects to generate 564am peak hour, 555pm peak hour and 734 weekend car trips. Once these cars are green lighted to enter Lawrence Hargrave Dr... where will they go? Traffic is already at a standstill on weekends. This is going to create more gridlock than we are experiencing now.
    The traffic study was tabled from information generated from just 2 days of monitoring - Thurs 19th Sept and Sat 21st Sept.
    Conveniently this avoided the weekend winter sporting season - anyone familiar with trying to get in or out of the northern suburbs on game days will understand the sentiment of this and more significantly....it totally avoids the summer beach season. Try turning left or right at the McCauley St T-section on a weekend...I bet you have to wait more than the few second delay that is stated in the Intersection Results Survey.
    Cars can be backed up down Bath St waiting to get out.

    After the bus stop is moved, crossing island at IGA gone and on street parking taken away, I wonder if the carpark will be accessible to consumers 24hrs a day as it is now? This carpark is utilised by patrons of Beaches, Anita's and surrounding restaurants of an evening, as on street parking is already limited.
    The provision of 132 residential car spaces is inadequate in an era that most people own a car regardless of public transport options. Its conservatively around 50 spaces short. Where will they park ? What's stopping them taking up the Commercial spaces?We are busting at the seams here - anyone regularly catching a train to Sydney will tell you its standing room only, and how will that work in the current climate of social distancing ?
    It already takes a week to get an appointment at the doctors.
    The schools are at capacity - St Michaels are already turning families away.
    More importantly - what happens in an emergency ? How will services get through ? What is it going to take for council to realise that everything has a limit.
    Enough is enough.

95. We are against a development of this size adding 82 apartments for extra vehicle movements, thirroul already has major traffic flow problems. The design of the facade is not in line with the rest of thirroul it should be sympathetic to the older coastal village appeal. A Gold Coast design Does not fit naturally to this area a new development should add to the area not change the design.There is no added value to the community, nothing added to our way of life just more traffic less sun less escarpment views I think a development of this price should have a positive to us. The live music at beaches need to be written in all sale agreements so they sign an understanding of music noise. The live music at beaches is a valued community resource for both residents and entertainers as is Anita’s theatre. We do not need a situation where a small number of residents get to dictate in an area that should have entertainment. The parking on the medical strip needs protection for the elderly residents to easily access the healthcare.

96. The plaza and surrounds is definitely due for an upgrade, but 82 residential apartments should not be allowed. The development needs to be sympathetic to the existing Thirroul coastal village style and more importantly it needs to take into account the already congested traffic situation which is getting worse by the year. Council needs to listen to the ratepayers who live here and not developers!

97. You are our elected officials and bound to act in the interests of ratepayers above commercial greed. This is a cynical development for cashing in on the currently desirable location that is Thirroul and surrounds. It will negatively impact on that amenity in so many ways, as have all been brilliantly expressed by my neighbours. I look forward to you listening to this voice of our community that has spoken resoundingly against this proposal.
    Do your jobs and reject it, councillors.

98. Hi,
    Today LHD was a traffic jam from The Headlands Hotel, through Austinmer to Bulli Pass. It was also jammed the other way. The effect was to lock Austinmer residents in, U turn to go back home, or if two people let you in a damn long crawl.

    With lines on the side roads.

    Traffic management people dismiss a probable 164 plus new residential cars as inconsequential. Suggesting traffic lights.

    Limiting traffic, by limiting population, at present 80,000 new people in Sydney per year, and refusing a paradigm of insatiable compound growth is a form of heresy. Taboo and unthinkable.

    The land owners have been given the right by Gladys and partners Govt zoning regulations to pass on the externalities, the unaccounted costs to others, the public. You and me.

    No vote on it allowed.
    No local democracy.

    The profits will be private, the costs are socialised.

    NSW Planning has no real plan but infinite growth. This is not planning but is a form of destruction.

    Irrational.

    We have all witnessed this over the last two decades here. Powerless to stop it.

    As Sandon Point showed they, NSW ALP- LPA will even change the law for the owners, exempting them from it. Remember that?

    Renovate it. Design something in keeping.
    No units.

99. New shops and plaza yes I is needed more residential properties not needed strongly opposed to this there are already far to many old homes being sold and knocked down to make way for either duel occupancy or town house dwelling, no more !
    The traffic won't cope and the aesthetics of the building will shadow the street and ruin the natural escarpment view we have

100. The only thing good about this proposal is that it would fix up a tired looking commercial plaza shopping area. In saying that however, we do not NEED a bigger supermarket!

     The residential units are only to make a quick profit, then to leave the community and Wollongong City Council to live in and clean up the mess left behind by.

     The 82 residential units would sell for between $600,000 - $1.2million dollars each, resulting in a profit of between $49, 200,000 - $98,400,000 million dollars.
     Then there is the profit from the commercial unit sales....$10's of millions extra!

     This is what it is about, not helping the community!

     Then approx 1 - 2 cars per unit = between 82 - 164 extra cars trying to move through an already over congested King St and Thirroul/Northern suburbs area in general.

     Then the noise complaints which would eventually come from residents, could potentially force the entertainment license at Beaches Hotel to be revoked at one of the best live music venues in the region!

     There is no way at all that this proposal is in the best interests of the community....it only serves the greedy!

     Enough is enough!!

101. Hi there
     Without doubt the plaza needs some attention
     I'd prefer a revamp rather than a knockdown and rebuild - maintain the village vibe and keep to two storeys.
     But if you are going to develop
     1/ pls do the toilets at the same time
     2/ keep it two storeys so we can see the wonderful escarpment
     3/ half the number of apartments - the traffic would be horrendous with 82 apartments
     4/ guarantee that the live music at Beaches and Anita's continues - residents cant complain as the pub was there first and we want to keep live music
     5/ keep the commercial rent reasonable to attract independent boutique stores - the last thing we need is big brands
     6/ insist on no fast food brands

     be true to the character of the village and honour the landscape please, don't put economy first, thanks

102. While the plaza is undoubtedly in need of an upgrade. The disadvantages far outweigh the perks of this urban plan. There are three key issues. One, the local roads are already suffering with existing traffic, let alone the addition of several hundred more cars.
     Two, the number of apartments, 82, far exceeds the suburbs capacity. The town is popular and liveable due to its friendly village feel. Large scale residential developments such as the proposed, will negatively impact the village nature of the town.
     Three, neighbouring buildings support the local music scene and historically a residential complex of this nature, will be at odds with noise levels. This is a consistent story with similar urban developments.

103. To echo 90% of the previous submissions, an upgrade to the shops and frontage would be welcomed but 82 units is a ridiculous idea. Traffic gridlock is already a major issue in Thirroul, already exacerbated by the Macauleys Beach development. Another 500++ daily vehicle trips will simply add to that with the junction next to Beaches Hotel needing yet another set of traffic lights to cope!
     Secondly, there is a danger that the presence of these units (no doubt accompanied by high-rent retail spaces attracting major corporates) will detract from the village atmosphere within Thirroul. The units will almost undoubtedly be bought by ex-Sydneysiders looking for a "better quality of life" while reducing the appeal of Thirroul by turning it into what they're attempting to escape!
     And the concern regarding local music venues is also quite valid. These are facilities are currently enjoyed by many people from the local area and it would be a shame to see their activities curtailed.

104. I object to this development of the existing Thirroul Plaza,  DA-2020/363 on the grounds below;* firstly the loss of on-street parking in Lawrence Hargrave Drive* the development does not have any community space in the plan where people can meet* no public amenities such as toilets * traffic plan was not extensive enough covering different times & days of the week, must have been conducted during Covid - 19 lockdown.* Unprecedented times in NSW history to submit such a controversial DA, I do not feel confident that this DA will be scrutinised enough.* Overdevelopment of site with residential units, will these units be sold with a  'noise clause' as they are so close to railways lines & live music venues that are vital to the cultural fabric of Thirroul village. The height of these units will block key views to the escarpment & create unwanted shadowing across Lawerence Hargrave Drive. These units do not meet "compliment the current urban fabric" as stated in the WCC / DCP for Thirroul Village Centre. The retail parking allotted will not cope with visitors to the unit owners, therefore, pushing parking into residential streets. Why 82 units when Thirroul would benefit from office space. * Traffic congestion, the construction will cause congestion 6 days a week for at least 2 years which will flow into quiet residential streets, removal of on-street parking changes the streetscape of Thirroul village & greatly disadvantages the elderly locals who are still able to park in the street safely.* Underground parking, will it be able to cope with flooding rain* Thirroul Village does not need this type of development to change the Village streetscape to look more like satellite suburb of Sydney or the Gold Coast of Queensland.

     Below are  the WCC/ DCP AIMS & OBJECTIVES for Thirroul Village;
      3.1 Aim of the plan 1. The aim of the Thirroul Village Centre Precinct Plan is to strengthen the role of the centre as an economic and cultural hub through enhancing the existing character of Thirroul. Improvements to pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular connections into and out of the Village Centre, the consolidation of parking facilities, as well as the encouragement of residential and retail/commercial uses particularly in a variety of mixed use developments is promoted. 2. The strategies and controls in this part of the DCP will ensure new developments contribute to the desired streetscape character of the Village Centre and maintain environmental sustainability through appropriate built form and public domain elements including building setbacks height, architectural design, materials and finishes, open spaces and footpaths, parking facilities and pedestrian circulation. 
     3.2 Objectives 1. The key objectives of the Thirroul Village Centre Precinct Plan are: a) To support retail frontage along Lawrence Hargrave Drive wherever possible; b) To encourage retail activities along Lawrence Hargrave Drive; c) To encourage a viable village through a variety of uses and activities; d) To create and consolidate open spaces for the local community; e) To create a place that recognises cultural identity; f) To maintain efficient traffic flows whilst enhancing pedestrian amenity along Lawrence HargraveDrive; g) To provide adequate parking to maintain viable retail activity; h) To maintain a village character with a safe pedestrian environment; i) To create a built form that compliments the existing urban fabric; j) To reinforce links to surrounding areas, in particular, Thirroul Beach; and k) To retain key views to the escarpment. 
     This DA does not support any of the above aims or objectives for Thirroul Village Centre.

105. This development would adversely change the character of Thirroul as a small seaside town forever, increase the current traffic congestion and increase the strain on essential service infrastructure that is already overburdened.
     Thirroul does not need 82 new apartments, or even a quarter of that number on top of a commercial redevelopment that is a redevelopment in the face of a downturn in stores as a future viable retail business model. Thirroul already has another supermarket, there is a Woolworths in the next town and the town is currently not lost for choice for cafes and restaurants, in fact some buildings are vacant and waiting to be leased.
     The development in its current state does not reflect the needs of residents who already live in the area, weekend tourists who visit or the protection of the future vision of the character of the town as a small seaside village. It does however highlight the problems Thirroul and the Northern Suburbs already have due to over development, infrastructure and traffic strain.

106. I am writing to strongly object to the above development plan.

     The development of Thirroul Plaza including four (4) storey 82 units , new traffic lights at King street and changed bus and parking on Lawerence Hargrave Drive(LHD) will change life in our village in a negative way.
     Over development brings a host of issues from Traffic management , water runoff, increased student number (lack of available places at local schools). This development will probably, in time affect the live music venues of Beaches and Anita's, as residents will be within meters of these venues.

     Traffic
     The traffic survey was done in September outside our usual summer traffic flows.
     LHD is already a bottleneck most summer days and is unable to be widened to cater for increased traffic flow. The traffic reports talks about a peak hour train every 4 min, ( simply not true. It uses traffic growth based on Thirroul population growth between 2011 and 2016 at 1.7%, ( this doesn't allow for the tourist growth dues to sea cliff bridge and the success of tourism Wollongong. ) The data survey used was from the 19.9.2019 and 21.9.2019 both days in which we had rain. The 19th being heavy rain.
     Expected vehicle movements from the development is expected at 560 peak hour vehicle trips and 734 peak hour weekend trips. which will trigger the new lights at LHD and King street to stop the flow of traffic on LHD. I believe the Traffic Report does not adequately address the real current traffic flows and the solutions recommended serves the development but will increase the existing problems on LHD.
     We also need to consider that whilst it has been over 50 years since we have experienced major fires o this strip of land, fire experts predict it will happen again, with only 1 road each way in and out of the Thirroul to Stanwell Park strip and a population double that of 1968, the problems people faced over Christmas not being able to escape fire ravaged regions and the unnecessary panic we saw in our local population (panic buying) during the current covid situation. How do you think we would handle a major fire event. If you intend to leave will you be able too or will you end up in traffic gridlock.

     Noise
     This report only deals with Traffic and rail noise and doesn't address noise produced by the near by entertainment venues. The noise monitoring equipment was placed in the carpark towards the king street , is this sufficient to understand the noise the 4th floor residents will encounter, especially those close to Beaches. The report talks of the site not meeting requirement for noise with windows open and needing mechanical ventilation.

     Flooding and stormwater
     Flood study was based of the 2015 report and not the updated 2019 report currently used by council.
     council requirements include "Garage floor level to be no lower than the 100
     year flood level minus 300mm or 300mm
     above finished adjacent ground (whichever is
     the greater)." With two(2) levels of carpark below payment level, this above rule cannot be met , even the ground floor level will be subject to 1 in 100 flooding.
     It is proposed that a large stormwater holding are be built on the site along the western boundary to capture storm water and release over time. As we appear to be getting less frequent but larger rain events, hopefully this tank requirements allow for future weather events, not historic.

     Services
     The writers understanding is that both the public and private local primary schools are currently exceeding capacity, an additional 82 unit which represents a 1.5% increase in house numbers between Coledale and Thirroul ( 2016 census ) wlll put further pressure on schools.
     Since 2016 we have already seen medium density development as well as many subdivisions in the area. Can services really support a High density development.
     One which proposes the maximum population density for the site area and the minimum environmental controls.

     Development control plan
     These are the key points taken from Wollongongs council plan for Thirroul.
     • to support retail frontage along Lawrence Hargrave
     Drive wherever possible; - 3.2 (a)
     • to encourage retail activities along Lawrence
     Hargrave Drive; - 3.2 (b)
     • to encourage a viable village through a variety of
     uses and activities; - 3.2 (c)
     • to create and consolidate open spaces for the local
     community; - 3.2 (d)
     • to create a place that recognises cultural identity;
     - 3.2 (e)
     • to maintain efficient traffic flows whilst enhancing
     pedestrian amenity along Lawrence Hargrave
     Drive; - 3.2 (f)
     • to provide adequate parking to maintain viable
     retail activity; - 3.2 (g)
     • to maintain a village character with a safe
     pedestrian environment; - 3.2 (h)
     • to create a built form that compliments the existing
     urban fabric; - 3.2 (i)
     • to reinforce links to surrounding areas, in particular
     Thirroul Beach; - 3.2 (j) and
     • to retain key views to the escarpment - 3.2 (k).

     From the photomontage, the setback 3rd floor is quite visible from most LHD locations, views of the escarpment are partially blocked. The development will be negative for traffic flow and pedestrian flow, with cars heading south having to move to the gutter lane then back to the centre lane at King st. Vehicles turning right at king street are likely to block the southbound flow. King street is normally close for the Saturday of the seaside festival, with around 160 residents accessing home from King street, will this change the Village festival.

     The plaza is run down, thanks to the current owners (who are the developers),so many in the community are happy for ran updated look, but does this planned development meet the DCP for Thirroul and will residents expectations of living in this Village , in fact with a high density at its doorway can we still call Thirroul a village?

     I object to the size of the development as being out of character for the DCP plan, increasing traffic congestion, limiting views of the escarpment, exposing the retails shops to flooding exposing the residents to noise issues unless widows are closed. increasing all residents to bush fire via more congested escape routes.
     Changing the character and use of the site significantly with no further communal green space.

107. In addition to all the already posted objections which I fully endorse, I have several points that I also wish to raise:
     1. In an article which appeared in the Mercury on Saturday 16th May a council spokesperson commented that the INCREASE IN TRAFFIC created by this project WILL NOT be considered by Council in assessing the DA. If this is true then it is obvious that councillors don’t have any idea of the impact on the local population caused by the existing traffic, let alone the implications of an increase in the future caused by this and other DAs. It is also obvious that no councillors live in the area. Maybe they should take a drive through Thirroul on a weekend or during peak times on weekdays (school times and people driving to or from work).
     2. In the same article it was stated that if the DA was rejected, it would negatively impact the economic growth of the region. In fact the opposite is true because local residents would prefer to go to Woolworths in Bulli where parking (and traffic) would be a lot easier (especially once the extended parking lot is completed at Woolworths).
     3. There is a TWO story height limit for Thirroul under the Wollongong Development Control Plan so why is a three storey DA even being considered?
     4. The extra units planned would add additional revenue to the Wollongong Council in the form of rates etc. Could this be an incentive for the council to approve the DA?
     5. This DA appears to be a “make a quick profit “ plan for the developers with no consideration of its affect on the local community.

108. As a local I am outraged by the proposals, we do not have the infrastructure to accommodate the DA, nor do we want our place that we call home turned into another Cronulla, Bondi or Manli.
     As anyone who lives here will be aware, the traffic congestion that occurs on a daily basis, and only intensifies at a weekend, with single road access, is overwhelming for those that live here.
     Has anyone considered the impact on services including GP,s, schools and also the Health and well-being on the residents of Thirroul as well as the environmental impact.
     The Proposal does not reflect the character, or the community that I live in or want to reside in. We do not need or want 'big developers' destroying our beautiful town.
     Amending the amount of units would only delay the inevitable, once the first brick is laid it will be unstoppable.
     I implore the council to listen to the residents of our town, as the council should reflect the wishes of their local residents,and not those wishing to become rich on the back of DESTROYING THIRROUL

109. I am not a resident of Thirroul but regularly visit my granddaughter.
     This development will effect a large percentage of the population in the Illawarra and Northern suburbs. By and large this is going to be felt the hardest in Thirroul, but the ripple will be felt a lot further afield.
     I feel compelled to ask - how can I development of this scale be dumped on the rate payers of Thirroul with no warning or sufficient time frame to compile a response ?
     The DA is comprehensive and difficult to understand in some points for the layman. The developers have had the luxury of taking their time to formulate their submission yet the residents of this town have been given the same exhibition period as if it were a single house proposal.
     Releasing this amid the Corona period of social distancing seems very coincidental and hampers residents ability to unite on this very important matter.
     I agree with all the points listed in these submissions re traffic/ parking/infrastructure but also think people need to take particular notice of the flood and shadow study. The escarpment view which is a notable feature of the Northern suburbs will be lost.
     The pretty pictures that have been released by the developers do not accurately reflect the impact this development is going to have on LHD. The photos on the DA show a much more imposing building that puts the shops, cafes and bars on the opposite side of the street in shade by around 2.30pm.
     This is an arrogant proposal solely for the developers to make money it does not add anything to the community, it just leaves the residents with a town they never wanted or asked for.
     Please listen to your constituents. They are telling you they don’t agree with their village being destroyed.
     In hindsight, it has been acknowledged by council it was a mistake to allow the over development of Wollongong City but it is not too late to save Thirroul village.
     Just because you can, dosen’t mean you should.

110. When we first moved to Wombarra I was able to get to the Hospital as the on-call surgeon easily within 20 mins to attend emergencies. Nowadays it frequently takes 35 to get through Thirroul traffic en route Wollongong. We need less traffic, not more. And with a single lane each way into Wollongong, the addition of hundreds of extra vehicles will basically mean LHD is a car park from Coledale to Bulli. Hard to believe anyone would agree to making the current terrible situation worse.

111. Too much traffic, a nightmare to travel across Thirroul already. It will make it even worse. In danger every time you want to come out of Kings street onto L.Hargrave drive.
     Keep Thirroul safe. No more big development!

112. Thirroul Plaza Needs to be renovated.
     However we object to the building of 82 new residences.
     The increased traffic will create mayhem for commuters.
     Thirroul stand still on week ends and everyday during school hours.
     Most of ours friends avoid shopping at the plaza as it is impossible to get to Lawrence Hargrave Drive from either King street , Arthur street or Redman Avenue.
     Thirroul centre needs a bypass before any further development is authorised.

113. Infrastructure has not kept up with property development in the Northern Illawarra for years whilst developers have been busy subdividing and adding multi-dwelling apartments on once single dwelling sites.

     Without upgrades to roads, public transport, footpaths and schools in the area there should be no allowance for massive apartment blocks like this.

     Building for more cars in an area already hamstrung without alternate routes is a disaster in the making if we were to have an emergency like a bushfire.

     The future of apartment buildings should also not be designed to be so reliant on the car.

114. Andrew R.
     New South Wales2 days ago
     I live on Lawrence hargrave drive and already know the impact of weekend traffic. I can barely park outside my house most week days let alone busy weekends adding an additional 82 apartments not only ruins this “ small coastal town “ but will cause more grief to the roads.

115. Kaija K.
     New South Wales2 days ago
     Too much traffic as a result; happy for a re-vamp of the shops, but not a massive development behind it.

116. lise h.
     New South Walesa day ago
     TRAFFIC OVERDEVELOPMENT NO CONSULTATION given to ratepayers about where they see Thirroul going into the future.We as ratepayers have never been consulted or the the chance to express out thoughts on the future of Thirroul .

117. Roslyn B.
     New South Walesa day ago
     As a former resident , I believe it will definitely change Thirroul In a negative wAy , also the traffic will be horrendous and potentially dangerous ! Please put peoples lives above profit !

118. Anouska L.
     New South Wales7 days ago
     Additional Traffic conjestion Only one road in and one road out will cause major delays during an emergency such as bush fires etc.. Local schools already over populated The blocking of the picturesque view for tourists & locals of the escarpment More pressure of overcrowding on trains to Sydney This is a village and not high density living area

119. Donna H.
     New South Wales7 days ago
     This equals traffic chaos. Not enough to infrastructure to support this. Our classrooms are full, our sport fields are full car parks and roads are congested. The local hotel Beaches supports Live local music up to 4 nights a week. The permanent residents will not tolerate this in close proximity to their homes. It is a business precinct and should be retained as such. Once business and light industrial zoning is lost it never returns to the demise of the area. We don’t make things anymore because the zoning Is lost to residential.

120. Georgia W.
     New South Wales7 days ago
     Overdevelopment. No consideration to ratepayers by council if this gets approved.

121. Amber J.
     New South Wales6 days ago
     The traffic in Thirroul is already so busy and not managed well and this will dramatically make it worse. More so I fear for the beautiful aesthetic with 82 apartments being put in. This will then set a precedent which changes the landscape of this beautiful area. I also have concerns which haven’t been touched in about transport to Sydney. Trains are already congested. I am in agreeance the place needs an upgrade but not like this. Thank you.

122. Kathy C.
     New South Wales6 days ago
     The 82 apartments are not in keeping with Thirroul village atmosphere. It is not fit for purpose. Thirroul is increasingly becoming more and more overpopulated for the facilities provided. Again not fit for purpose. Parking is a current problem. Imagine with a further 160 cars. Keep the village culture and disallow the mass apartments.

123. Pia M.
     New South Wales6 days ago
     Please keep the “village feeling“ in Thirroul, no high buildings please . Thirroul has now 11 meter max and that is to high😞 one reason is as the beautiful escarpment get blocked plus the sunlight doesn’t come down to the village Streets . We also have of course the traffic that today is absolutely shocking we don’t want to add to it. 😱 Please save the Thirroul for unnecessary development with big high-rises and big carparks! And please if you’re gonna renew the shopping centre please do it with a “costal feeling “ , thanks 🙏

124. Art P.
     New South Wales6 days ago
     It would ruin this lovely little village

125. Kim G.
     New South Wales6 days ago
     Thirroul will not be able to cope with the amount of people and cars on the Road. One road in and out. Over development will ruin thirroul village.

126. Riley M.
     New South Wales6 days ago
     Thirroul is cool as it is :) don’t ruin it

127. Michelle G.
     New South Wales6 days ago
     Roads are too busy now, there is no way we can support another 82 units in thirroul, that could mean another 164 cars. We need more infrastructure before council can seriously go ahead and approve this site 😩

128. Elise V.
     New South Wales6 days ago
     This is my town and I believe it will add an ridiculous amount of people to the town that we are unable to cater for. Traffic and parking is bad already and this will increase it ten fold.

129. Scott D.
     New South Wales5 days ago
     I moved to Thirroul 10 years ago because greedy developers destroyed the town I grew up in. Please don’t let it happen to this special part of the world.

130. Kathleen H.
     New South Wales5 days ago
     I live within a block from the development. TOO MANY UNITS! Surely as smaller amount would be practical. It's too hard now to get in and out of my residence. WAY TOO MUCH!!

131. Cliodhna M.
     New South Wales5 days ago
     I grew up in the austinmer and thirroul areas and have spent most of my life there as well. They continue to over develop thirroul into this overcrowded, uppermiddle class suburb of sydney and still call it a 'coastal town/village' with where it is losing that very value that had given its special place within the community and evetyone who has lived and grown up there for many years. If its not broken, dont fIx it!

132. Nicholas M.
     New South Wales5 days ago
     No more development until traffic issues are resolved. Continual degradation of quality of life for the locals due to overcrowding of thirroul, traffic congestion, inadequate parking, and loss of Thirroul’s village atmosphere due to overdevelopment is slowly but surely ruining the northern suburbs and cannot be undone. STOP!

133. Susan M.
     New South Wales5 days ago
     It’s important as if this goes ahead it will totally change the atmosphere of Thirroul forever. All the reasons we love living here will be lost. The other reason is the traffic won’t cope with that number of extra vehicles and putting in another set of traffic lights so close to the set at Raymond Road. Also if we have a bushfires like we did in 1968 were the whole of the escarpment was on fire there is only one road out and that’s Lawrence Hargrove Drive. That would be a total disaster and very dangerous. Who will take the blame if there is lives lost. Most of all it’s not wanted by the majority of residents at that ridiculous scale. One last thing which is really important to me is the fact it won’t take long before we lose Beaches and our music venue due to complaints by the new residents. Plus a Anitas Theatre then would be next. What a loss that would be to all of us who have been enjoying the music and great vibe Beaches is 3 nights a week. What a sad day it is when we lose the music to development to feather a few peoples nests. Shame on council if they let this through.

134. Kirsty W.
     New South Wales5 days ago
     Thirroul only has one road in and out, overdevelopment of thirroul will congest traffic significantly

135. Malonee C.
     New South Wales5 days ago
     I live in the area ajd, as a resident do not beleive that there is the infrastructure to support 82 units in fhe centre of Thirroul's village.

136. Amanda C.
     New South Wales5 days ago
     Lets hope this quirky little village is not lost forever to the greed of a bunch developers., some of whom are locals! Everything they have built so far is cheap and ugly (176 LHD for example).

137. Debra M.
     New South Wales4 days ago
     The roads Cannot/Will Not Cope. Single road in and out along that coastal Road. No room for Road expansion! Thirroul is a Seaside Village and that is how is Should Stay. No Over Developement

138. Fiona M.
     New South Wales4 days ago
     The traffic through Thiroull is already a bottle neck this will exacerbate the problem. Solve the traffic problem before increasing development.

139. Suzanne L.
     New South Wales4 days ago
     The lack of infrastructure. Don’t say there is a train line close as Australia is a culture of cars due to the distance between areas and the fact that we don’t have amazing transport systems between major hubs. 1 road in and out is dangerous!!! Have you ever been stuck between Austinmer and Thirroul due to diversions from a car accident up on the highway!!! I avoid the main part of Thirroul on weekends as it is. Greed, Greed, Greed over commonsense

140. John G.
     New South Wales6 hours ago
     Developers don’t pay for any of the problems that their proposals cause like traffic, overcrowding, infrastructure upgrades ie water mains, sewerage mains, that cost is socialised to taxpayers and rate payers. This development is not an improvement it actually positions profit over community.

141. Jessica H.
     New South Wales7 days ago
     As a local resident of Thirroul, an upgrade of the Plaza is welcomed, however the proposed number of units is outrageous- far too many for this area! Traffic is already a major problem, particularly the stretch of LHD where the Plaza is located. This development will put further pressure on local infrastructure and services that are already at capacity. Not to mention the adverse impact this will have on the nearby live entertainment venues. This proposal fails to consider the broader community impacts. Please rethink this proposal!

142. Cody M.
     New South Wales7 days ago
     The over development of Australian coastal towns destroys the innocence and appeal of such locations, which should be protected and conserved.

143. Jude S.
     New South Wales7 days ago
     Not in keeping with the village atmosphere of Thirroul More cars ++ Occupants likely to make conpkaints regarding music from Beaches Hotel which is the Only live music venue and free in the northern suburbs

144. Grace T.
     New South Wales7 days ago
     This is such a lovely town that I grew up in and isn’t the place for a huge development it doesn’t suit the people living there and shouldn’t become some ugly monstrosity in a nice town area.

145. Karen M.
     New South Wales7 days ago
     Besides nothing from council to where you can object or feedback relating to the development Traffic, how can 2 days be picked to show what traffic is like on Lawrence Hargrave They studied 1 saturday and concluded peak was between 12.45pm to 1.45pm, totally incorrect, And the proposed construction chaos this is going to be horrendous, trucks entering and leaving, traffic being stopped to allow truck movement, yet the traffic impact does not reflect the amount of traffic throughout summer, weekends on beautiful days

146. Andy M.
     New South Wales7 days ago
     I have lived and worked in this area for many decades and from what I see on a daily basis Thirroul is already at capacity. This includes roads and schools. Also as a local musician I can see this development will lead to a reduction In the ability for venues to offer live music due to noise restrictions placed upon them because of the close proximity of places of residence outlined in the plan.

147. Darci W.
     New South Wales7 days ago
     Because I am a local, dealing with the traffic now is already horrible let alone for this to cause more is just going to be awful

148. ruth e.
     New South Wales7 days ago
     the current proposal will have a negative impact on Thirroul, in particular to traffic flow and parking.

149. janet s.
     New South Wales7 days ago
     I am regular at the live music events at Beaches and Anita's I know this development next to the pub is likely to result in noise complaints and an end to the live music as we know it

150. Geoff A.
     New South Wales7 days ago
     To keep the Live Music Scene in the Northern Suburbs. And Thirroul is already " groaning" under the present load of new developments in residential sector and upsurge in Tourist Traffic, since opening of the SeaCliff Be ridge

151. Sharon M.
     New South Wales7 days ago
     While I feel it's time Thirroul Plaza had a recamp, I feel the proposed development will not be cohesive with the village vibe. 82 apartments is far too many and the infrastructure is not in place to accommodate such a huge surge in residents.

152. Olivia F.
     New South Wales7 days ago
     Thirroul is beautiful and this will spoil it

153. Lucia Z.
     New South Wales7 days ago
     We are suffocating with traffic and overdevelopment- lock the morons up 😡

154. AS an Austinmer resident for 45 years it seems to me inconceivable that a development that will add to the already horrific traffic congestion in the Thirroul area is actually being considered. The current problems with traffic on LHD have already led to numerous studies and investigation into the need for an additional route. This would seem far more critical now in the face of bushfire threats. There has been no action in this regard and now we have a proposal that will clearly exacerbate the problem. The proposal also adds another set of traffic lights on the corner of LHD and King St, which will make 4 sets of lights in a few hundred yards.
     Then the proposal suggests a clearway along LHD from the Commonwealth Bank to Raymond Rd. after which the traffic will reenter 1 lane and become an enormous bottle neck at the bridge over the railway, not to mention hugely disadvantage any businesses on LHD.
     There may be merit in upgrading the shops but on balance, seriously, this proposal has far more negatives than its worth. In my view, sheer madness!!!

155. I have been a resident in the northern suburbs of Wollongong for over 20 years and shopped in Thirroul all of that time. Thirroul is a beautiful village and a great tourist attraction in which visitors can enjoy the village atmosphere and high street shopping. This new development will not only change the ambience of the village but more importantly will effect the safety of the locals and tourists. The traffic has become so heavy over the last few years especially on holidays and weekends. It is bumper to bumper and as there is only one road in and out it is so difficult for emergency vehicles to navigate up and down the coast. I think the idea of an additional 82 apartments and the traffic from them will just make the current traffic problems even worse. There are so many reasons not to increase the village population but safety is a real concern. The plaza definitely needs to be improved but building appartments there is in my opinion not the right way to do it. I lived at Wombarra for many years and know from personal experience that waiting for an ambulance can be a matter of life and death, this plan will only impact on this traffic problem even more.

156. The development of Thirroul Plaza including 82 units, more shops, new traffic lights at King Street and changed bus and parking on Lawrence Hargrave Drive will have a dramatic effect on the village atmosphere and a reduction of amenity in Thirroul. The design of the proposed development does not demonstrate it considers or responds to the site, the requirements of the residents or the opinions of local residents.

     This is an unreasonable overdevelopment of the site.
     The developers seek to maximise profits on the site and have been letting the site get rundown so residents will accept the upgrade. Remember we have already lost the facade of the shopfronts from the 1930’s which were supposed to be retained on the south side of the development.
     Overdevelopment on this site will lead to problems in traffic management, car parking, loss of street parking, many more residents, more shops and loss of escarpment views.
     There has been no consultation with residents and there is no reflection on amenity to the local village. The Wollongong Council has guidelines for desired character of the villages of the Northern suburbs which have been completely disregarded. The buildings are of excessive bulk and scale, right to footpath level, without making any contribution to public open spaces. 3 stories high from street level exceeds recommendations.

     The flawed traffic assessment furnished with this development is vastly underestimating the number of cars, much lower than RMS traffic generation guideline estimation. The traffic in Thirroul is a major concern already and we cannot place any further strain on the bottleneck, where a single lane each way over the railway bridge is the only way through Thirroul. One day in the future this will put local lives at risk; also every day in the future we will be queuing back up to Austinmer to get through at peak times of the day.

     Whilst commentators mostly consider the effects on traffic at the completion of the build, what about moving 2 basement levels of landfill off the site and thousands of truck movements in the area during the development?

     It’s difficult to imagine in current times how we could need a Coles with twice the floor space and a dozen retail shop spaces. Hopefully it won’t end up looking like desolate, uninhabited sections of Wollongong, like Crown St. This is also a commercial area, with live music venues, which should be able to continue to provide this entertainment without threat of noise complaints from surrounding new residents.
     
     The intended development is rapacious, insensitive to desires and needs of local residents and inappropriate to the site. There is no reason to have a development of this size and density here.

157. Whilst I have no objection to the much needed upgrade of the Plaza facades and general areas, I have a strong objection to the associated residential development. The traffic and parking issues here are already ridiculous at times. I would challenge anyone to find a park within easy walking distance of the Plaza area on weekends or when Anitas has an event, so please consider how difficult this is already for the elderly or those with challenges. This will simple be exaggerated if this development is approved as not only the residents but associated visitors and ancillary vehicles congest the area further. The proposed development is simply out of character for the Village and will create a clash between the heavily patronaged live music venues at Beaches and Anitas, inviting tensions between any future residents and others, whose current entertainment amenity will be under threat. This residential development is clearly potentially culturally dissonant, unpopular, disruptive and divisive for the community. It will forever change the character of Thirroul Village in a negative manner.Thank you.

158. I wish to object to this proposal because it fails to adequately acknowledge or address impacts on local traffic in residential streets or on through traffic on Lawrence Hargrave Drive.

     Piecemeal traffic assessments for individual developments do not make any sense when the real impacts are cumulative. This is a problem with the entire planning process.

     Thirroul is impassable particularly in a southerly direction, for many hours on most weekends (pre-covid-19), a situation that is already unsustainable for residents of suburbs north of Bulli Pass, and for tourists who bring revenue to the Illawarra. It is also plainly dangerous. Contemplate any emergency requiring a rapid response when Lawrence Hargrave Drive is a parking lot throughout Thirroul. Residents already consciously modify their travel behaviour when the road network is clogged, which is extremely inconvenient and stressful. "Rat-runs" have developed in residential streets both east and west of Lawrence Hargrave drive, commencing as far north as Austinmer, in mostly futile attempts to bypass the main road through the commercial centre of Thirroul. Futile, because the rat-runs converge on Lawrence Hargrave Drive north of the railway bridge that divides Thirroul. Existing traffic signals are not synchronised, and pedestrians risk life and limb.

     Relevant authorities appear to monitor traffic (measuring devices have been installed from time to time) but no action has been taken to ameliorate a situation that is becoming progressively worse with ongoing development in the northern suburbs.

     This DA should be rejected pending a thorough review of the road network and rectification of existing traffic flow issues, which follow past development approvals.

159. While i believe that Thirroul Plaza is definitely in need of a major re-vamp the addition of 82 apartments into this small village would create bigger chaos than what we already have to cope with. Traffic for locals during sporting seasons is already at a bumper to bumper not to mention just day to day activities with people going to work or taking their children to school. The issue with emergency services attempting to bypass this type of situation could be life threatening to those who live in and around nearby suburbs.
     Thirroul has always had a"village feel" and i feel the addition of such a large complex will only take that away. The parking on LHD in front of the businesses already established is also needed and essential for them to continue trading and allow access for elderly, parents and customers picking up items.
     Upgrade the plaza but rethink the detrimental effect of what 82 apartments would have on a town that is one way in & one way out.

160. Thirroul Plaza would certainly benefit from a facelift but the planned amount of apartments seems extreme. Thirroul is a lovely town boasting a friendly small town feel and it is my belief that a development on this scale has the potential to destroy this. I also fear that we don’t have the infrastructure to support this plan. Anyone who has attempted to pass through Thirroul on a weekend would recognize the difficulty locals and visitors already have- with traffic banked right up to Austinmer. A development like this is sure to exacerbate this problem.

161. While it is agreed that the plaza is in need of redevelopment, the proposed changes do not align with those of Thirroul community. The pressures on traffic will undoubtedly be detrimental to locals but also to weekenders. I believe the development plans of 82 units and a major supermarket will have a greatly negative impact on the community by suffocating the existing culture that thrives on being one of the last small towns of the Illawarra.

162. A modern facelift to the street would really improve the area, though untill further traffic management plans are provided the location is not suitable for a medium density unit complex. The area is already unsafe in the event of an evacuation due to regular traffic build up and another 500-700 cars daily seems like these impacts have not been seriously assessed.

163. Although the plaza may need refurbishment, the development plans for 82 units would be a grave decision that would spell the end of the "village feel" of the town and destroy the visual aspect of the beautiful escarpment backdrop.

     This development will also threaten the very survival of Anita's Theatre and Beaches Hotel, which inject more than just money into the local economy. To lose these venues would be a severe blow to the popularity of the area and indeed live music itself.

     The limited coastal strip area cannot deal with the traffic congestion demanded of it already. The residential development would severely worsen traffic problems which are already horrendous and out of control.

164. Thirroul would benefit from more investment however it is doubtful the road capacity, facilities and infrastructure has been designed to cope with the additional units and traffic this would bring. I would be concerned that in an emergency evacuation, routes which would be already tested with the current population and visitors could cope as they struggle with normal weekend traffic.

165. No thank you! Most comments have outlined the many acute problems with this application. It is not a mixed use development. It has no community or commercial spaces. Just a bigger supermarket, same number of shops and massive residential component. The DCP and planning documents for our village have been compiled by council over many years but seem to have been completely ignored.! Back to the drawing board owners please.

166. This is not a mixed use/residential proposal, this is a DA to completely alter a village.
     There are no boundaries to this proposal, it is a village taker over with no consultation with the residents that live there.
     Traffic is going to be horrendous and the loss of on street parking, character and escarpment views is a crying shame.
     The ramifications of changing the natural water course is going to be a big problem for residents outside of this development.

     A group of developers do not get to decide the future of a town.
     That’s why residents pay rates - to have you, our council, protect our heritage, character and environmental beauty.
     The attributes that are outlined in Wollongong Councils own DCP -Chapter D12, need to be adhered to and protected.
     This DA in its current form should never have come this far. It does not comply with the DCP.

167. My objections in regards to DA2020/363 on Lawrence Hargrave Drive (Thirroul Shopping Complex).

     I am not opposed to the refurbishment of the Thirroul Shopping Plazza.

     I am however opposed to the building of the proposed 82 apartments, as this type of aggressive over development does not fit in with the calm nature of the beach-side suburb of Thirroul. It simple does not fit in with the local landscape.

     Developments of this nature should not be allowed to happen in this location, at least until Wollongong City Council, the RTA and the NSW Government provide us with proper roads and other basic infrastructure that could accommodate such developments.

     We are already suffering from transport fatigue in the northern suburbs of Wollongong. One only needs to observe the heavy traffic on weekends to understand that we have already reached a point of saturation.

     Something that should not be overlooked is the the fact that such an increase in the local population requires the provision of services like transport, more trains, parks, community spaces and institutions. We just can not accept such level of development when these basic services are not yet provided.

168. We really need the Plaza updated to something that is in character with the rest of the town, the Coles new country layouts they have set up in the city etc and maybe some other country organic stores to buy from. But not the units above, a small food & wine venue would better suit and have those lovely views to enjoy in business hours of course.

169. As a Thirroul resident and homeowner for a decade, I would like to add my objection to the DA for development of Thirroul Plaza.

     This DA represents a gross overdevelopment for this area, is direct conflict with many objectives outlined in Wollongong Development Control Plan (WDCP 2009) Chapter 12D and without significant amendments will have a detrimental impact on the quality of life and amenity of the existing residents, businesses and amenity of the area.

     With ever increasing permanent residents, coupled with drastic increase in tourist travel the existing roadways are not coping. The single lane Lawrence Hargrave Drive, bottlenecks at the single-lane train bridge between South and North parts and is exacerbated by traffic lights at the entrance to McCauleys Estate at Wrexham Road. The potential risks in respect to emergency services access/egress in the event of bushfire emergency and the closure of Lawrence Hargrave Drive and integrity of the old railway bridge must be addressed before adding a development of this size and scale. Further to this, transport and traffic assessments must be conducted accurate and representative of actual conditions (those included in this DA were conducted at non-peak times and months).

     The size, scale and build of this development is inappropriate for this site and area. 82 residential units is too many for the heart of Thirroul ‘village’. As per the WDCP 2009) Chapter 12D new developments in the Village Centre should retain core retail village components and character of the existing buildings.

     Significant infrastructure issues including traffic volume, public transport, parking and school capacity must be adequately addressed BEFORE a development of this magnitude be approved. There must be adequate community consultation, which has not happened on this occasion.

170. We have been waiting for an upgrade to the neglected Thirroul Plaza for some time, so it was with great disappointment to see that little consideration had been given to the the issues that encompass the Northern Suburbs.
     To see the residential component they want to squeeze into this tight section of Thirroul is alarming and shows no duty of care to the residents of this area.

     It is glaringly obvious from the many submissions concerning this development that while an upgrade of the plaza is needed, the majority of residents are opposed to the negative impact the scale of this development is going to make on our day to day movements and well being.
     The community are sending out a resoundingly loud NO to this proposal for many valid reasons.

     To lose the view of the escarpment, the sun shining on the main street, public space and on street parking is a travesty. They are what gives Thirroul it’s village vibe - not a huge supermarket that nobody asked for and an extra 300 people and 200 cars.

     The traffic problems have been documented in detail by well informed residents who actually live with the chaos daily, as opposed to someone standing on a corner for a couple of odd hours in September.
     The King St traffic lights do nothing to alleviate issues on LHD. In fact they add issues, particularly for Redman Ave.
     The loss of on-street parking would be a major blow to the viability of our independent family run stores and amenities.

     Under the 2009 Wollongong Development Control Plan for Thirroul Village Centre Chapter D12, this development is a big fail.
     Prove to us that the DCP’s are worth more than the paper they are written on because at the moment, this proposal flies in the face of its core values.
     The Flood study needs to be looked at very very carefully. It is well known there are specific points along LHD and surrounding streets that have previously been adversely affected by the topology of the area and the failure of storm water pipes to cope with even a short deluge.
     This has been addressed in the Flood study (point 5) with the suggestion that if the measures they plan to put in place fail, the shops at ground level could have, I quote -
     ‘a flood barrier system to be activated by the shopkeeper during business hours when required, and can simply be installed at the end of each evening in case flooding occurs during non-business hours’.
     REALLY ??
     It goes on to state - ‘this is something that is not likely to be experienced frequently’.
     Try telling that to the shops across the road like Egg and Dart, Mamma’s Pizza, and Oat & Honey- who had shoes floating around in their back carpark after our last big storm.
     After they excavate to sea level for the two storey carpark it is going to change the water course and no amount of ‘best practise’ or ‘modeling’ is going to hold it back.

     There are also suggestions in the flood study that the residential component have an alarm system to notify them if the measures in place...an On Site Detention pit, fail.

     ‘ A trigger level could be set up inside the OSD tank and when the run-off in the tank reaches a certain level an alarm could sound to all occupants of the development to install the flood barriers and to expect imminent flooding on Lawrence Hargrave Drive’.
     Who is going to alert all the existing residents who live in houses downstream from the development that will cop the brunt of the run off ?
     If anywhere near what is proposed goes through, future generations will never know what it was truly like to live in Thirroul village. It will just be a carbon copy of every other over-developed town. Don’t allow Thirroul to lose its magic.

171. While it is very clear that the Plaza , which has been deliberately run down, needs a total renovation, the sheer size and scale of the proposed development is not acceptable in a town this size. The last of the village nature of Thirroul would be lost forever, and there would be no return. The one road in and out of Thirroul surely could not support the increased anticipated traffic and an already horrendous traffic problem would only be exacerbated, and there would be frequent gridlock. Not to mention the potential threat in an any emergency (including Fires or floods) of emergency vehicles not being able to get through, or potentially there being no way out for residents if the one road was cut. Please consider the nature of this beautiful village, that we are lucky to call home, and how it will be forever , irretrievably be changed.

172. I am vehemently against this proposal.
     During peak times Monday to Friday, traffic along LHD from Austinmer to south of Thirroul is at best, heavy. On the weekend traffic is at a standstill, sometimes from the other side of Kennedy's Hill in Austinmer to Bulli. This used to occur mainly during summer, however now stretches year round. No amount of traffic control will manage the current issues already in and around Thirroul, let alone with these proposed extra traffic movements. There is only one road with two lanes in and out of Thirroul as well as suburbs north all the way to Helensburgh.
     How can the Council entertain such a huge increase in daily traffic movements?
     The NSW SES and Council are the experts in flood plans - this application should be with them for consultation prior to public release - particularly as the updated study has not been released as yet.
     Car movements are always underestimated, with no thought given to events, both social but more importantly environmental. There is only one way in and out of Thirroul -
     We were very lucky this fire season that the escarpment didn't ignite, unlike the South Coast and many other regions in NSW. How will these extra traffic movements impact egress for the public and access for Emergency Services?
     The Bureau of Meteorology forecast rainfall to be up to 80% above median this coming year. Once again the question of egress and access rears it head!
     We have all experienced the effects of Climate Change and words like Fires unprecedented in memory, Flood of Record etc comes to mind.
     The risks aren't about the fact people are stuck in heavy traffic for extended periods, the risk is to peoples lives trying to evacuate the area! This is a real risk!

     NO - the addition of 82 Units is a money making exercise without due consideration to the lives and safety of residents and responding emergency services.

173. The shops definitely need a renovation but 82 residential units is crazy! Firstly, Thirroul and surrounding suburbs can’t handle the extra traffic/cars and secondly, the town would lose it’s small town feel.
     There would be safety concerns regarding evacuations and increased congestion from the additional cars.
     Local live music would need to be protected from noise restrictions also.

174. With regard to the proposal of DA - 2020/363 to be granted in Thirroul I find this to be highly irresponsible. Whilst Thirroul Plaza needs refurbishing, it certainly doesn’t need the extra proposed development of 82 residential apartments. The existing roads in Thirroul are already heavily congested. I and many residents living in Thirroul and surrounds, constantly experience the gridlock trying to get in and out of the area safely. Putting extra traffic lights on Lawrence Hargrave Drive does not solve this problem as it only leads to further frustration of drivers trying to get to their destinations. Lawrence Hargrave Drive was constructed in the 1870s with no obvious foresight for future development in the area therefore causing the major problems of today. WCC has allowed the residential areas to now become overpopulated within this region. The Illawarra escarpment has already experienced devastating bushfires in years past. The 1968 fires should be a lesson learnt, as the area then was not as populated and the thought of fires occurring now, with Wollongong Council allowing constant further development in the area, is totally irresponsible. We have had further fires in the Royal National Park in the 1990’s and 2000’s spreading quickly down the escarpment which have also been threatening. How can anyone escape quickly and safely if this catastrophe were to occur again? WCC need to consider all the repercussions of not being able to escape. How can emergency transport be effective in gridlock areas? As there is only one (1) main road accessing the Thirroul area it should be obvious this is always going to cause havoc. With over 11,000 residents living in Thirroul, Austinmer, Coledale, Wombarra, Clifton and Scarborough area alone all vying to escape safely and quickly, it stands to reason that the approval of more residential development will cause MORE complications to the major problems that already exit. Noise and environmental pollution Is another concern for this area.

175. Yippee!!!!!!!!! More over development.

     I do hope that it is well designed as all residents of the area will spend a huge amount of our time looking at it, while we are grid locked. Also a good job we are fixing LH drive as all those north of thirroul will need to drive to bulli via Helensburgh.
     I enjoy live music, bye bye Beaches, and anitas as the NEW residents will have you guys closed down due to noise complaints, and you were there first. No more eating outside of the wonderful restaurants on the other side of the road, too noisy.......
     WCC has done a grand job of looking after the current traffic issues over our SINGLE lane bridge, what could go wrong with this development, golly I can’t think of anything!!!!
     Can’t wait for all the building and construction movements, this will get us ready for the extra traffic I guess.....

     Top idea, stop this disaster.

176. With regard to the proposal of DA - 2020/363 to be granted in Thirroul I find this to be highly irresponsible. Whilst Thirroul Plaza needs refurbishing, it certainly doesn’t need the extra proposed development of 82 residential apartments. The existing roads in Thirroul are already heavily congested. I and many residents living in Thirroul and surrounds, constantly experience the gridlock trying to get in and out of the area safely. Putting extra traffic lights on Lawrence Hargrave Drive does not solve this problem as it only leads to further frustration of drivers trying to get to their destinations. Lawrence Hargrave Drive was constructed in the 1870s with no obvious foresight for future development in the area therefore causing the major problems of today. WCC has allowed the residential areas to now become overpopulated within this region. The Illawarra escarpment has already experienced devastating bushfires in years past. The 1968 fires should be a lesson learnt, as the area then was not as populated and the thought of fires occurring now, with Wollongong Council allowing constant further development in the area, is totally irresponsible. We have had further fires in the Royal National Park in the 1990’s and 2000’s spreading quickly down the escarpment which have also been threatening. How can anyone escape quickly and safely if this catastrophe were to occur again? WCC need to consider all the repercussions of not being able to escape. How can emergency transport be effective in gridlock areas? As there is only one (1) main road accessing the Thirroul area it should be obvious this is always going to cause havoc. With over 11,000 residents living in Thirroul, Austinmer, Coledale, Wombarra, Clifton and Scarborough area alone all vying to escape safely and quickly, it stands to reason that the approval of more residential development will cause MORE complications to the major problems that already exit. Noise and environmental pollution Is another concern for this area.