12 Longview Crescent, Stanwell Tops NSW 2508

Residential - dual occupancy and two lot torrens title subdivision

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website about 4 years ago. It was received by them 7 days earlier.

(Source: Wollongong City Council, reference DA-2016/483)


Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Alan Bond commented

    I strongly object to this development application for the following reasons:

    1. The dual occupancy is definitely not within keeping of the Objectives of the Zone. Low density hardly fits the description to two, two storey dual occupancy homes on 10.67m wide blocks despite sought for seperate Torrens titles. There will only be just over 2 metres width between the buildings!

    2. Dual occupancy in Stanwell Tops is usually one home in front of the other (as 6 Longview Cres.) with a single common driveway if it's possible.

    3. Most importantly this proposal will set a "over development" precedent because of the block subdivision. It is “cluster” development in a proven, highly dangerous bushfire zone.

    4. Previously Wollongong Council have rejected "cluster housing" on 6 lots on Maddens Plains despite being large properties. But the houses were going to be within close proximity of each other in a proven high risk bushfire zone.

    5. Wollongong City Council and authorities also rejected "cluster housing" on the Lady Carrington South Estates located adjacent to Helensburgh.

    6. Council can NOT afford to have a precedent set of dual occupancy representing "cluster housing" in such a limited suburb like Stanwell Tops with a proven environmentally sensitive natural wildlife corridor area.

    7. Importantly, the Illawarra Escarpment State Conservation Area is adjacent to the south; the Australian Heritage Listed Garawarra Conservation Area, Kellys Falls Section adjacent to the north and the Woronora Plateau to the west.

    8. These areas must be protected from over development within Stanwell Tops which only has 2 roads in and out.

    In Conclusion:
    Wollongong City Council must exercise their "Duty of Care" to not allow any precedent of "over development" by allowing this dual occupancy "cluster" within Stanwell Tops.

  2. Alan Bond commented


    To emphasise my Objection on this DA is the great concern on Bushfires.

    Council must remember the chaos that surrounded the 2001 Christmas Day Bushfires that came close to obliterating Stanwell Tops and much of the surrounding district.

    The chaos of traffic jams on the limited roads of the area.

    That it took Scarborough Fire Brigade 4 hours to go from Bald Hill to Longview Crescent, battling the fire all the way. A relative of mine was one of the firemen.

    Now the population has increased with more families living in residences of Stanwell Tops.

    Such a disaster of another bushfire, which will inevitably happen, can never be dismissed or not taken seriously by Council.

    Council were concerned over this very matter, when they rejected the Helensburgh Land Pooling.

    The same can be applied to here because of allowing the dual occupancy of "cluster housing" which increases population in an isolated area.

    Can Council afford that risk?

  3. Alan Bond commented


    1.The 24m high Eucalyptus tree referred to in the Arborist’s Report is in an extremely dangerous position in that it leans towards my property and home.

    There is no mention of this in the Arborist’s Report. I was not interviewed by the Arborist on any concerns.

    2. If it was blown down like the previous tree in the same front yard , located at the corner of the present driveway on the nature strip, of same height and weight (30 tonnes) in 2003, and fortunately laid down on the nature strip outside of 12 and 14 Longview Crescent, this present tree could certainly reach my house and bedroom section.

    It could even possible take out the tall liquid amber trees in my own front garden from across the road, adding to the carnage. But the tree could fall any direction. Adjacent homes would be in danger too.

    There is no mention in the Arborist’s Report on this previous tree that was blown down by strong westerly winds. As a matter of fact, no westerly winds affecting the tree are mentioned at all.

    3. The tree would be placed in a similar dangerous position if a driveway is allowed to pass near it.

    The tree blown down did so because the ground slope from base of the tree to the current house driveway undermined the tree. It was also affected by the ground water and was shallow rooted because of the sandstone beds just below the surface in this section of Stanwell Tops.

    The Arborist’s report makes no mention of this.

    4. There is also “foaming up” around the base of the tree after heavy rain which indicates an instability in the ground it sits.

    There is no mention of this in the Arborist’s Report.

    5. This tree may be in keeping with typical trees at Kellys Falls etc, however they do fall down but do not pose a threat to housing at that location since there are no houses there.

    The subject tree in the Arborist’s Report is a severe, extremely dangerous threat to surrounding houses. Council should exercise their “Duty of Care” and have this tree removed by the applicant.

    Youtube video link of 30 Tonne Tree Being Blown Down: https://youtu.be/ykPZaBa_D_A

  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