116 -144 Bowden Street, Meadowbank

Section 96(2) application to modify consent

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website ago. The date it was received by them was not recorded.

(Source: NSW Sydney and Regional Planning Panels, reference 2016SYE027 DA)

4 Comments

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

  1. Huw Edwards commented

    I oppose this development on the basis that it has already gone through an exhaustive approval process which dealt with the issues and loss of amenity resulting from this project in great detail.

    If there was a requirement for the community center it should of been included in the existing development application and not added on after the fact, along with the additional parking which will exit directly onto the already stressed Bowden street.

    In the last two weeks the developer has requested 65 additional parking spaces across two applications alone. It is foreseeable that we are talking about hundreds of additional parkings spaces on top of those approved by the time all developments are done.

    The developer needs to respect the decisions taken by the planning authority and councils and stop continuously coming back with substantial changes to their development, mostly driven by the desire to increase their profits.

  2. Alastair Agnew commented

    I concur 100% with the submission of Huw Edwards on this matter. That the planning authority should even countenance such ad hoc, post-approval variations does seem to make a mockery of the entire planning process. It seems a deliberate, pre-planned and strategic approach by developers, whereby the initial application is little more than a starting point in terms of how the development will look when completed.

    The role of the planning authority in this process is disheartening. Rarely are these variations ever denied. Thus this submission carries no expectation of having any effect on the outcome.

    As local residents, we respect the need for an increase in the housing stock as per local zoning. However the effect of these cynically rolled out additions, with the inevitable sharp degradation of overall amenity (as noted, placing even further stress on the already chaotic present day transformation of Bowden St) is to completely remove any residual confidence in the fairness and validity of the planning process.

  3. Jennie Minifie commented

    Ryde Community Alliance requests that the application to vary the approved development be refused. The provision of a Community Centre as part of this development is a clever manipulation of the existing development consent to benefit the developer far more than the local community by providing additional floorspace for the community centre presumably as an "in-kind" contribution in lieu of s94 developer contributions.

    While a community centre is a valued community asset, the redevelopment of Meadowbank is characterized by the imposition of approvals way in excess of the local development standards without strategic land-use planning to address the future needs of the residents.

    The re-development of the Crowle Home and the P& O Totalizator Building, both heritage listed; offerred opportunities for the integration of a range of facilties to serve the local community, such as a community centre, while retaining the cultural heritage and providing an attractive community focus. Consideration of the social needs of the people in the area is essential to avoid building a massive housing estate with little amenity.

    The Alliance believes that the application for amendment of the approved development to gain additional floorspace and primarily benefit the developer should be refused and contributions be required as provided under the existing s94 plan. Noting also that the S94 Contributions Plan is in urgent need of revision to make it relevant to the massive population increase arising from the existing part 3A, concept approvals, and increased densities now permissable under the Ryde local environmental plan. No upper limit for the population of Ryde has been contemplated by the council or the NSW Government while the approvals have been rapidly rolled out in a totally ad-hoc manner.

  4. Sherie Barton commented

    This is typical behaviour of developers. They get the first part approved and then gradually add more. There should be a law against it.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to NSW Sydney and Regional Planning Panels. They may consider your submission when they decide whether to approve this application. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is part of the digital library from the local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small 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