4 Woodmere Av Paradise SA 5075

Change of use to student accommodation with a total of 8 students per residence (total 80 students)

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website about 1 month ago. It was received by them 3 days earlier.

(Source: South Australia Planning Portal, reference 22011954)


Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Sophie commented

    This proposal is stage 2 of the development of this area. There is already development of approx. 15 dwellings completed and this will add another 80 residents to what was 6 blocks. As a neighbour I strongly object to this development which will further exascerbate parking and rubbish issues that have arisen since the development of these blocks. The main issues for my objection:

    1. Parking and congestion
    The developers proposed parking allocation is inadequate for the number of tenants the development is going to accommodate not to mention tenants visitors vehicles. In the last 1-2years since the completion of the first stage of this development we have noticed an increase in street congestion and parking in nonparking or 2hr parking areas.

    2. Waste Generation and Disposal
    There is insufficient street frontage to accommodate the number of Council waste bins that this development is going to require. This development will add to the increased amount of rubbish in the streets noticeable since the completion of the first stage of this development. This rubbish is generated by the vehicles parked in the street and from the overflowing bins and uncollected junk mail blowing out of the developments’ letterboxes. This high density development in a medium density area will put huge strain on existing waste disposal and collection services which will struggle to access bins in the increasingly congested streets.

    3. Noise Levels
    There has been an increase in ‘hoon’ driving in the area and by introducing further high density dwellings to the area that noise pollution (cars, parties etc) will also follow, spoiling the tranquility of the area and the reason why most people move here.

    4. Green space
    Densification has to be accompanied by setting aside adequate green space within a development to allow for opportunity to enjoy the outdoors within their immediate area and the benefits for health and wellbeing. The close proximity to Linear Park does not absolve the need for developers to incorporate green space within their increased density developments to ensure that this area remains a desirable place to live.

  2. Robert commented

    This developer has so far made the area worse. The rubbish bins outside his development are always overflow and not properly used for the manner designed. The beginning of Norman Street has cars parked on both sides making in dangerous for those turning into it if a car is approaching to leave as they need to pull over to side quickly if the oncoming vehicle is in the right to keep exiting. At night the vehicles often have people on their phone sitting in them, while blocking the exit/entry. Another 80 residents is not needed. We actually already have well and enough to cause issues. I think this land the developer currently own should be made into a play ground with two large fig trees planted, similar to those in and around Adelaide Oval. This would be add to the area and give those teenage kids somewhere to play exercise and build their muscle. This would be an ideal. The area needs something like this and it would be a great for the community. The council could purchase the land off the current owner and give residents hope in a better future. We need to have vision we need to be brave. This developer is only interested in money and cares little about the area or the problems he creates in it. We don't want slums or issues. Be brave stop this development and get the council to purchase the land. Hand out fines to those using bins incorrectly. Fix the issue at the beginning of Norman St before their is a serious injury and accident.

  3. Avis commented

    Car parking in the streets is causing traffic congestion with so many people in this area already. Street gutter cleaning is useless as cars are parked making gutters inaccessible to the truck cleaning and so gutters are filled with leaves and debris. A once beautiful area is turning into a slum area. The interchange car park seems to be used by the current occupants of units and will only increase with another 80 plus tenants who are using parks meant for bus users who now have to Park in the unrestricted parking areas away from the interchange making it unsafe when parked both sides of streets.

  4. Julie and Kym Tilbrook commented

    We made the following comments and objections to SCAP when Student Rooms applied for 7 bedrooms in each of these 10 dwellings. Why was that application withdrawn? This higher density proposal of 8 bedrooms in each is even worse than the original and we strongly urge that it be refused.

    1. PARKING proposed by the developer is totally inadequate. The formula in the State Design Code requires 0.3 parking spaces for each bed in student accommodation. With the developer proposing 80 beds on this site he should be providing 24 parks. The 17 onsite parks provided are totally inadequate and are so cramped that most are unlikely to be used for anything other than storage. Current student residents are parking in restricted areas on the streets and also in the Paradise Interchange carpark. There has been for many years a constant problem for local residents of overflow parking by commuters even since the carpark was extended. Hence, for safety reasons and to protect local residential streets being clogged with all day parking, there are 2 hour and No Standing restrictions put in place by Council. These restrictions are patrolled and this developer has no right to assume they can be abandoned to suit his development.
    The developer also states that in general not many students have cars. This is an absolute fallacy as we have already experienced in this location.

    2. OVER-DEVELOPMENT , this is a high density proposal in a medium density zone. There will be very little outdoor space for 80 students with no room for garden and the proposed bbq and outdoor eating area will be miniscule and next to garbage bin storage which we don’t see as amenable.
    The developer states ‘House Rules’ will prohibit any parties or gatherings. Neighbours have been forced to call police in the past due to loud parties on the upper deck at another of the student rooms on this site into the early morning hours, and cars revving and roaring from the premises.
    The developer also states that these rooms will “not be open to the public at large” and there will be a “requirement that residents are full time tertiary students”. We question that this will be adhered to. Any student accommodation of this magnitude should have an onsite live-in manager.

    3. WASTE DISOSAL is a huge concern for this proposed development which would take the total number of students on site to over 100. The previous application stated
    ‘current plans assume commercial collection but Council collection will be explored’
    Commercial collection has its own problems for local residents, and indeed student tenants, with a proposed generation of 7,300 litres of waste and recycling per week and at least 6 truck movements per week where a large truck will be reversing into the shared driveway from Norman St. This is not even going to be possible if the developer includes carparks on the street and the noise and emissions for neighbours as well as possible odours from waste, will be incredibly intrusive.
    Our experience of local student tenants shows that they mostly order in takeaway food because cooking areas provided are too small, hence there is already a large amount of garbage overflowing from bins, some of which ends up on the street
    The tenants have not been properly educated about recycling and often the recycling bins are contaminated with garbage because the garbage bins are full and this contaminates a whole truckload of recycling.
    If Council collection is the final outcome, the number of bins required for such a development is mind-boggling. The developer proposes that students will be educated in the proper disposal of waste but this is not happening with the current student accommodation.

    4. STUDENT AMMENITY is covered by the Council-wide section of the Development Plan Consolidation 26 September 2019. We don’t believe the area provided for common shared facilities is anywhere near adequate. We note that the only indoor area is basically the kitchen area. The TV viewing area is extremely small and does not allow enough space for recreational and leisure type activities. The developer claims he is offering private open space in the form of balconies and/or substituted with communal open space (including rooftop gardens, common rooms or the like) that is accessible to all occupants of the building. Our analysis of the plans would indicate that the private open spaces are not large enough to accommodate 70, let alone 80 students. The courtyard private open space at the front of each building is tiny and is likely to house waste bins and plant equipment. From our point of view this will severely compromise informal recreation. Looking at images of the student rooms, we believe they are too small. How do students find the room to use their desks…photographs show virtually no space between the end of the bed and their chair and study desk. Surely students should have a comfortable and relaxing study area. Another area of concern to us is the kitchen area. For 8 students, after excluding benchtops, fridges and freezers, the area is about 17 square metres. How is that adequate for that many students?

    5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT is of concern with this high density development allowing virtually no green space amongst the concrete to cool the area and provide amenity for the residents.

  5. Matthew Noble commented

    Although I am a Councillor on Campbelltown City Council, I am writing this submission as an individual resident as it is my understanding that the planning staff from Campbelltown Council will be making their own submission, opposing the change of use of the dwellings to the State Planning Commission on behalf of Campbeltown City Council.
    I live a few streets from this development, at 14A Karatta Avenue. Many residents have expressed concern over this development over several years and I am attempting to represent their views by making this submission. Several of these residents are also lodging their own submissions to oppose the change in land use.
    My major reasons for opposing this development include:
    • High level of density of this development
    • Car parking and spaces
    • Lack of private open space
    • Waste Management
    High level of density of this development
    Each of these 10 townhouses, only have a land area from 97 m2 to 124m2. This development did not meet the minimum of 150 m2 per dwelling as required by Campbelltown Development Plan at time of approval. I have opposed this development at every stage of its approval process. The dwellings have living area that are too small and not suitable for student accommodation. Allowing each townhouse to have up to 7 bedrooms is not functional. This would create slum like conditions that are not suitable for human habitation.
    The garages are very small and most normal sized cars would not fit in the garages. The dwellings have almost not storage and therefor most of the garages are being used for storage.
    The internal layout fails to provide any suitable communal areas whatsoever within the building. The only nominated internal communal area is the kitchen area which is of a size and layout that is inappropriate to facilitate up to 7 students. The overall area within the kitchen/meals area after excluding bench tops, fridges and freezers is a sum total of approximately 17 square metres which is considered completely inadequate for the anticipated intensity of use. Moreover, the laundry area located adjacent to the stairwell is a total of 1.85 square metres inclusive of areas for the washing machine and basin.

    Car parking and spaces
    The current car parking is inadequate for its current use. Many of the cars from these dwellings park at the new car parking at Paradise Interchange. Each evening, after the buses have stopped operation, around twenty cars are still in the Paradise Interchange car park, adjacent to these dwellings. These cars belong to the current residents of the 10 townhouses.
    And these cars do not leave in the morning, creating twenty less car parks for the commuters that catch the O-Bahn each day. I predict that the State Government will start charging for car parking at Paradise Interchange and these cars will be forced onto the local streets and this will further upset local residents.
    This indicates that already with its current land-use the development has twenty less car parks that it needs.
    It is not accurate to suggest that students do not own cars. Most do and therefore creating up to 70 student accommodation rooms on these sites is unreasonable and should be rejected.
    Lack of Private Open Space
    The proposed dwellings will have very little private open space.
    Whilst the proposed floor plans technically provide common shared facilities, the areas provided are not considered to be of sufficient design and dimensions to effectively function for their intended purpose. No scaled furniture is depicted on the floor plans which would give a sense of the practical space available for occupants of the buildings. The only indoor common area for students is essentially kitchen space and the location of the wall mounted television which is effectively within the kitchen area is indicative of insufficient space for recreational or leisure type uses. The only ground level private open space is largely occupied by waste bins, clothes lines etc. which compromise the areas use for recreation or leisure purposes.
    The proposed private open space areas are insufficient in dimensions to accommodate the anticipated number of students residing in the buildings. The courtyard private open space at the front of each building is little more than an entry area to the dwellings and is largely occupied by waste bins, plant equipment (mechanical heating and cooling), clothes line etc. which significantly compromises the ability of this area to be used for informal recreational activities and the like.

    Waste Management
    The waste management proposed as part of the development utilises a common waste management plan with the principal bin storage area being located within the common driveway which is accessed via Norman Street. The nominated location and size of this area is impractical and relies upon land associated with 17A Gameau Road, Paradise. This would result in insufficient private open space being retained for the existing dwelling at 17A Gameau Road, Paradise.

    Matthew Noble

  6. Julie Bischoff and Bill Bischoff commented

    Julie and Bill Bischoff
    We are writing this submission as a close resident to the latest application at 2-4 Woodmere Avenue. We strongly oppose this application as we are already
    burdened with excess cars looking for parking spaces. We cannot assume that of 80
    extra students none will have cars just because they live close to the Obahn.
    This developer is taking advantage to the extreme of the latest governments high density planning not thinking about the existing residents living in a medium density zone or the extra burden on service utilities ie Sewage, water and electricity. Weekly rubbish bins are constantly overflowing with waste with no thought about what goes in what bin. Also the extra number of council bins will only add to this problem and the amount of waste
    they contain.

  7. Catherine Maier commented

    As a resident of Paradise I'm very disappointed that the council is considering such a high density development in this area, a development that is in clear breach of the current development rules. This development makes no consideration of the impact such a high density development would have on the existing residents nor on the pressures it would place on the existing amenities.

    Previous developments in the same location by the same developer have already paced undue pressure on parking with bottlenecks occurring at the Norman St/Gameau Rd intersection and current residents of these developments are parking at the interchange thus removing valuable parking from commuters and further compounding the problematic parking on surrounding streets. Current behaviour of the developer clearly show that he has little regard for the area or abiding to development requirements as the previous development situated behind the proposed new development has an incomplete driveway leaving existing residents unable to access their carports.
    The assumption that students do not own cars is absurd and the jobs available to students often involved in the gig economy and require cars i.e. food delivery, ride share.

    There has already been a significant increase in rubbish being left on the road and foot path, waste collection bins are inadequate with rubbish overflowing. I also often see the wrong waste type being put in the wrong bin which increases the cost of waste processing for all residents. These bins also crowd the foot path on collections days making difficult for pedestrians to safely navigate around them and are not always removed after collection in a timely manner.

    Student accommodation of this size is high density dormitory style accommodation in a medium density residential area. No assurances by the developer can ensure that parties and noise disturbances are will not occur. 80 students will have parties as can be seen by what has occurred with the existing students already on site. The general disturbances 80 additional people will have to the surrounding area is enormous.

    The living area is hugely inadequate for a dwelling that is home to seven people, with almost no outside space and tiny communal living areas it brings into question the quality of life and metal well-being we are offering these tenants. We provide zoo animals with better accommodation than is being proposed by this developer.

    This development does nothing to improve the curb appeal or natural elements of our neighbourhood. There is little to no green space allowed or additional tree planting planned. We have already lost so much of the natural landscape through the continued redevelopment of housing blocks. If this type of development is allowed Adelaide's appeal as a livable city will be greatly diminished.

    I would urge the refusal of this development because of the reason outlined. The resulting buildings, a gross over-development and landscaping, of which there is none to speak of, are not in keeping with the area and will be detrimental for the local residents. I have concerns that this is a purely financially driven development with no regard for the existing community nor for the well-being of the future tenants.

  8. Elizabeth Maier commented

    The application for development of 2 - 4 Woodmere Ave should be denied.

    - Parking
    I have hosted students and they have acquired a car within the first few weeks of their stay with me and I live within 100m of the interchange so the suggestion that none/few of the 80 additional students will acquire a car is laughable. In addition to owning their own car their student friends drove to my premises thus needing space to park. This will be replicated by the students in the new development.
    There is an existing problem with parking at the junction of Norman and Gameau Rd at all times of the day and night and from what I have seen these cars belong to the residents or visitors of the existing development on Gameau/Woodmere Ave. Also I know visitors of residents are being told to park in the OBahn Interchange carpark.
    The residents park in the interchange themselves. This denies commuters parking spaces and forces the cars into the surrounding streets hence making entry and exit from their own property difficult for the residents.
    The Interchange car park should not be part of the parking allowance for the developer nor should the streets. We have 2 hour parking or no parking in this area for a reason ie so residents can access and exit their own driveways and that should not be changed.
    The size of the car spaces within the development will be very difficult to access from the narrow driveway. Again forcing the cars to be parked elsewhere!!

    - Temperature
    Campbelltown council is one of the hottest suburbs in Adelaide and the lack of any green space to allow for natural cooling does not exist within this development thus further compounding warming of the area. A development like this is not in keeping with Campbelltown council's own greening strategy or climate solutions.

    The footpath does not form part of this development and no planting of trees within the streetscape can be considered as green space for the development. Allowing green streetscape to be considered as green space for the development suggests that it should be used by the students as leisure space.

    - Fire Risk
    Fire departments are regularly called to student accommodation to attend false alarms caused by cooking in inappropriate spaces. One of the issues raised by the fire department on a tour I attended is how do you ensure living spaces are used for their purposes. Looking at the size of the kitchens this is a highly probable situation. Expecting our fire services to regularly attend calls of this nature is a gross waste of time and money. I would like to know how this concern has been mitigated by this proposed development.

    - Residents
    80 students will party and socialise and have guests stay the night. This will cause a massive increase to the noise disturbance created for surrounding residents. Again how does the development ensure noise levels are kept to a minimum. Also this development has approval for 80 students only, how can this possibly be controlled. Residents will have friends come and stay and or partners move in.

    - Waste
    How is waste going to be managed effectively when there is already problems with waste management on the existing development? The proposal does not allow adequate space for waste collection vehicles to manoeuvre both on the premises and from the road to the premises, particularly if there are cars parked on the road.

    High density development in medium zoned density definitely not.

  9. Nick Abbott commented

    Thanks Matthew Noble for taking this on. This is why so many people voted for you, including myself.

    It's hard to fathom how they could cram in 8 students into each townhouse (80 people in total).

    Definitely there would be issues with the place turning into a slum. And parking issues would be immense.

  10. JK Van der Ploeg commented

    I have for 8 years endured the fallout of living adjacent to this development and have
    provided in this period many reports and complaints to council and SCAP. The whole
    development is a hotchpotch of ugly building with no visual attempt to enhance the
    area. As the plan now to house 80 or more students is back on the agenda, one
    wonders where are our town planners?
    This area is not conducive to student accommodation.
    The largest problem we the rate-paying residents have is car-parking. Even worsened
    since the enlargement of the interchange car-park.
    Even Norman street [the only carriage-way for local traffic] is choked with cars daily.
    I fully support and endorse other correspondents.

  11. Paul Winkley commented

    This developer has already downgraded our area, and the new proposal will further adversely impact our district and increase problems for all local residents.
    It should be rejected because of problems such as
    • High density of buildings on this site
    • High density of residents
    • Car parking
    • Management of waste
    • Minimal space
    • Strain on utilities and services
    Packing in 10 box dwellings means that the land area for each is under what is required in the Campbelltown Council area.
    Squeezing in 70, or now 80, people is unsuitable. The living area is too small, the laundry is miniscule, storage space is low, and the garages are small and will be used for storage and not cars (this occurs already, in the existing blocks).
    There will be a large strain on the electricity supply, water pressure and the waste water. Also, added noise problems with more air conditioners, disturbances from deck parties (which already happen), visitors and food deliveries with cars coming and going noisily.
    The already inadequate parking situation in and around Paradise Interchange will be over-stressed. This corner area is the one exit for Paradise residents to access main roads, so extra traffic will cause difficulties for us and for Metro buses trying to enter or leave the Interchange etc.
    Despite what the developer says, students do have cars, and they end up parked illegally on the footpaths, streets and in the Interchange.
    The waste storage, disposal and access is ill-suited and also encroaches on an adjoining property. 80+ people will create an overload of rubbish, especially with take-away food packings, and contamination of recycling loads will increase.
    There is already student accommodation in local houses. The proposed application is a massive over-development which could be seen as opportunistic and exploitative. Quite apart from quality of life being affected by minimal private and communal living space and poor outdoor areas, there are safety issues, such as fire exits, especially for upstairs residents having only a small stairway to escape.
    There used to be 6 houses with trees, gardens and plants and lawns. That’s all been lost because of this “developer”. Our suburb has been degraded, and the loss of greenery and increase of concrete has increased the heat map of our local environment.
    There are so many just and obvious reasons why the proposal must be rejected.

  12. margaret-ann copeland commented

    Dear all, please be aware that the council assessment panel - who make the decisions about these applications - won't look at these. Your best bet is to contact your mayor and your councillor, and try and speak with the council planners. However, they will interpret the code as they see fit and that is the frustrating part of the planning code - poor third right of appeal.

  13. Winton Inkster commented

    Here we go again.
    Developer 2, ratepayers 0.
    Apart from all of the common-sense and emotive issues I cannot understand what we are doing here again.
    Over the past 20 years or so development, construction and circumstances have changed. There have been many committees formed to regulate and form new rules and regulations for development, living densities, height of buildings, size of buildings, effect on existing infastructure and importantly, putting the right development in the right setting.
    We now have another panel formed to hear an appeal to say that all the existing rules and regulations are rubbish.
    If these experts see this development for what it is (greed) and have any pride in their profession they will reject it.
    Are trying to tell me up to eight people can live in this amount of space. RSPCA would not allow this overcrowding for animal housing. Commercial office developments require a given floor space per person to work let alone live in. One would almost consider this a commercial dwelling.
    How many regulations does this project have to adhere to! This project comes under the previous act and does not meet its requirement which were far more lax than the latest.
    As a 5th generation local resident please reject this latest application as it does not meet previous or current regulations set out by the authorities.

  14. Nick Abbott commented

    PLEASE BE AWARE that what you write here DOES NOT GET SEEN by the Campbelltown Council.

    You need to SEND YOUR COMPLIANT also to the council using their contact details below:

    Email: mail@campbelltown.sa.gov.au
    Postal Address: PO Box 1, Campbelltown SA 5074
    Street Address: 172 Montacute Road, Rostrevor, SA 5073
    Telephone: (08) 8366 9222

  15. Lisa Roncoli and Steven Leduff commented

    Application for development of 2-4 Woodmere Ave, Paradise definately should not go ahead
    There has already been a number of Town Houses built very close to each other, to allow this developer to build so many will cause a lovely, quiet, clean area of a suburb into ruin.
    PARKING; These new Town Houses parking areas are too small and there is not enough. There is already a parking problem this development will cause it to become worse. People are parking too close to driveways which causes problems entering or exiting driveways. Cars are parked on either side of the road narrowing the road to drive on. We see the same cars parked each day but very rarely see any parking inspectors issuing tickets or do the owners of the vehicles ignore the tickets.
    NOISE; With even more traffic and several people living in a small space is bound to cause unnecessary noise.
    WASTE MANAGENT; Each week we see so many overflowing bins, rubbish on the ground which causes smell and pollution, usually see wrong rubbish in the bins which the collectors still collect. Having so many more Town Houses built will largely increase this existing problem.
    Why ruin a lovely suburb that actually does live up to it's name. Being so close to city, having the Obarn and Linear Park. Shops ang great eating places nearby PARADISE. Please do not allow such a high density development, think of the residents (rate payers) not developers and the future of Paradise.

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

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

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

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

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

Back PlanningAlerts