PlanningAlerts

6 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

1. Please consider the lack of infrastructure in this area regarding traffic flow.
   We believe these developers, although reside in this area are only about making money without any concern for community.
   There needs to be a cap on development that impacts an area with limited access and infrastructure.

2. The Gables.
   Another historical building gone.
   We Australian’s are excellent at erasing our history.

3. How is it allowable to have DA amendments coming through after the developer has already sold part of the development? It is clearly unfair for the community to continually allow developers to make changes after public consultations have happened. It now requires the community to again go back and spend time looking into amendments and how that may or may not affect their original
   submissions. The community gains nothing financially from these changes but only have time and effort to lose. The allowance for developers to reapply and modify plans without limit exhausts the ability for fairness in process.

4. These units have already been advertised for sale or sold. https://www.domain.com.au/342-lawrence-hargrave-drive-thirroul-nsw-2515-2016806191 despite the pending (13/03/2021) RTA/RMS assessment.

   Access to this property for 3 units (6 cars?) is adjacent to a problematic intersection for school access and access to Rail parking and nearby community centre/library.

   The development is situated on the slope to the railway bridge - one narrow lane each way. This bridge is a serious bottleneck in all traffic flowing north and south for the northern suburbs. There is no foreseeable solution to this pinchpoint. Traffic is at a standstill most mornings for traffic flowing towards Wollongong, Bulli Pass and to local schools. In summertime and nice weekends, traffic is blocked entirely. This is a safety concern for emergency vehicles. The development is meters from the Church street intersection with LHD. This intersection is at the start of a school zone and access point for Rail parking. Pedestrian access at this intersection is frightening - no PedXing markings and limited visual scope for pedestrians to look out for (frustrated) drivers turning into and leaving Church Street. The garage entrance to the unit block opens directly on to LHD and is meters away from this challenging intersection, with the frantic, dangerous right turns exiting and entering - without any other reasonable access point for cars or pedestrians. The footpath is already narrow along this stretch of LHD that joins the southern and northern parts of Thirroul village. On any morning or afternoon, school kids and walkers and shoppers make this journey. Another sheer wall of concrete blocks, no vegetation and scary driveway entrances makes this proposal a high risk to safety and peaceful, healthy enjoyment for so many.

   Please consider the entirety of the development in Thirroul in the context of infrastructure and road management and safety.

   On balance, there is a large benefit to one development company, minimal relief for occupancy demands and major impacts (one of many incremental impacts) to the safety, access and enjoyment of residents, school kids and visitors.

5. This DA was approved already - so all the above previous points were previously addressed.
   To Jeremy who states the following
   " It now requires the community to again go back and spend time looking into amendments and how that may or may not affect their original submissions. The community gains nothing financially from these changes but only have time and effort to lose"
   I note that there is NO Jeremy listed from the list of current Wollongong Council Councillors, so YOU DO NOT REPRESENT the COMMUNITY. Please express your personal opinion but don't go speaking as if you speak for the Community – as you are not speaking for me. You have your individual opinion to express, as do I, I do not profess to speak for the community.
   Further the Community does gain financially by increased rates and fees from the development - and other fees and charges for the development. It is your choice to take the time and effort to respond - no one made you - so at your cost, which in this case is zero but your time.
   Saying that it took me, and I have nothing, zero, zilch, nada to do with this development, just a Thirroul property owner, less than 10 minutes to download and read the document(s).
   All they are asking is to knock down the existing stone wall as it may not be safe once they excavate it and reinstall it with much the same stone afterwards in a more safe and engineered way - so nothing really to see there.
   The original development was approved so why raise the traffic issue. It was accommodated and dealt with in the original DA. Whether you like it or not it’s being built. This amendment was about the stone wall and making it safe.
   This Planning Alerts forum has been hijacked by a number of self-appointed guardians of the "Old Thirroul" who want to see things remain as was. That does not happen anywhere - progress is progress. The aim is to ensure that what is being developed is not out of keeping with the needs of the area - and try as you might, people like Thirroul and want to live here – so the social need is more housing.
   It seems to be about the usual envy "greedy developer making money" - of course they are in it to make money but in the process employ lots of people to build this project and in future service this and other projects. Without this development, and others like it, the Australian economy would be non-existent except for mining.
   Apologies for adding to this comment unrelated issues - but it goes to the heart of the hijacking of this forum by self-appointed community representatives. As to the amendment for the record I want to be listed FOR the proposed amendment as its fair and reasonable.

6. I object to this development. Traffic issues compounded by increasing density should be resolved before council approves developments like this. If traffic issues cannot be resolved, then the density should not be allowed to increase regardless of the financial benefits to developers and council rates.