PlanningAlerts

8 Comments

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

1. The original DA227/2015 application was approved by the RJPP. Our community has been poorly represented by the official authorities who made the decision to approve this development application. The access for entry and exit is via Bonney Street Sans Souci only and therefore no consideration has been given to the residents for the volume of traffic that will be detrimental to the area in the future or the personal privacy of those residents who have lived here for many years. Now a new DA9/2016/283/1 has been lodged for an extension of units and parking. I write because this will be on the record and as I know from past experience that no protest I make will have any effect on the decision made by those who we hoped would represent us against companies with multi-millions to spend on over development. Is this the reason the lift well was approved to be above the roof line, more units could be added in the future? That future appears to be now!

2. I would like to air my grievances regarding DA 9/2016/283/1 a.k.a. DA 227/2015.
   DA227/2015 was originally 101 apartments and the council knocked this application back and only allowed 95 apartments. Subsequently because it was a project over $20 million dollars it went before the JRPP for the East Region of Sydney and the JRPP knocked back roof parapets so that building would remain at the fifteen meters allowable and the 95 apartments were allowed even with the limited parking that the developers propose.
   Now the residents have found that the developers want to increase the apartments by another four.It has already been knocked back why should they be allowed to increase the number of apartments back to the original DA. As residents we do not even have any councillor representation that we can voice our concerns to as the town planners seem to always be in favour of the developers.
   If you are aware Roads Minister Duncan Gay has announced that the F6 (SouthConnex) will more than likely go right under Rocky Point Road at Sans Souci. What will be the implications if the F6 goes through under that part of Rocky Point Road where these developers have this property.
   Also I'm wondering if these developers of DA 227/2015 & 9/2016/283/1 are even Australian residents/citizens.

3. I can't believe the audacity of the developers of this DA. Everyone complained that the lift overruns were apx.close to 5 meters over the 15 meter height limit.Now we know why.It was so that the developers could come back with another level to the building.
   Why bother having height limits when council and developers just want to be greedy and think they have the right to go against the law. If this gets passed we will all know why.

4. 14 February 2017
   DA227/2015 and 283/2016
   Good Afternoon

   NSW Government announced the amalgamation of Kogarah and Hurstville City Councils on 12 May 2016 – named Georges River Council. Ms Gail Connelly was appointed as General Manager of Georges River Council.

   On 20 July 2016 the JRPP panel members John Roseth, Stuart McDonald, Nicole Gurran, Juliet Grant AND Gail Connelly approved a 95 apartment development at 365 – 377 Rocky Point Rd, Sans Souci – 227/2015.

   Gail Connelly General Manager of Georges River Council was on the JRPP panel for this development. As I understand the JRPP panel is independent and consults with the General Manager of the Council concerned. How can the General Manager of the Council concerned be on the panel assessing a development? Is this a conflict of interest?

   The Panel approved a development which exceeds Councils height limits.
   The Panel’s approval included a condition to remove 2 roof canopies.
   The Panel did not consider surrounding residents concerns.

   The proposed development exceeds Councils height limit of 15 metres by 1.65, 4.63 and 4.21 metres across the development. They include lift overruns which are unnecessary and add to the bulk of the building.

   Access for vehicles, residents, visitors, mixed businesses, workers, deliveries, maintenance are all from one narrow street Bonney st which cannot accommodate any more traffic and has limited parking. The address for this development is Rocky Point Rd NOT Bonney St!

   Parking, traffic flow congestion, noise, loss of privacy impacts the surrounding residents. The right of way between Bonney and Broughton streets should be considered and included in this development.

   The JRPP meeting held on 20 July 2016 was disappointing with that the residents concerns were not considered.

   The JRPP decision has effectively set a most undesirable precedent for the area and this development needs to be stopped and built to council’s limits. And anyone could see what the developers had in mind in having the lift overruns.

   On 20 January 2017 a neighbour notification was received for the same property application no 283/2016 for “alteration and additions” to the development. The proposed alteration includes more apartments making it 99 with the construction of a new roof level. This “alteration and addition” will bring the height of the development to 19.45 on Bonney St and 19.63 on the southern side. It also again includes roof top canopies even though on 20 July 2016 the JRPP’s approval included a condition to remove 2 roof canopies.

   99 Units, you are talking about an addition of at least 200 residents and at least 200 residents cars and goodness knows how many patrons to the mixed businesses accessing the development via Bonney St. What will the business hours of the mixed businesses be as it will impact Bonney St residents?

   In the approved notice of Determination of a Development application for 227/2015 states that bins will be collected weekly and presented on Rocky Point Rd.

   In the BKA architecture Waste Management Plan for 365 – 377 Rocky Point Rd, Sans Souci “Alteration and Additions” states in the “collection of waste” that “Council will collect the general waste weekly and recycling waste fortnightly from the temporary storage area located at grade on Bonney Street frontage”. That is 99 bins one week and 198 bins fortnightly. Again how is Bonney st supposed to cope with this – Council truck noise servicing the bins, mess, further disruption to traffic, parking, and access?

   Bonney st is used by traffic flowing from Rocky Point Rd, Russell Ave to drop children off at St Finbars School on Broughton st and Bonney st is used as a short cut to access the Princes Hwy?
   
   Apart from the additional traffic, congestion of traffic, lack of parking on Bonney St, invasion of privacy to surrounding residents’, additional noise, vehicular access to the development only via Bonney St, the proposed development does not comply with Council’s height limit which is still 15 metres.

   Can you please advise where I may find the preliminary site investigation document in regards to contamination (if any) which may have been caused by the previous businesses such as the ice works.

   I again ask Mr John Rayner, administrator of Georges River Council, who quoted that you are available to meet with residents, to come and meet with the residents surrounding this development.

   As a resident of Bonney St I do not agree with this development and request Council and IHAP consider surrounding residents and streets and further review this application.

   Regards
   M Debono

5. 14 February 2017
   DA227/2015 and 283/2016
   Re (Da 227/2015) may I remind the developers/council planners that the lift overruns were approved against the recommendations of Bonney str residents. As this is what we saw coming and apparently the JRPP and council planners did not..............................or did they?

   We stated that the Lift Overruns were well above the 15m Height Limit. The JRPP erred by stating that DA 227/2015 was "Consistent with FSR and Height controls in the draft LEP." As according to Council, Building heights are to be in accordance with the Locality Controls. This proposed building exceeds the height that is permitted in the Locality Controls Maximum 15 Meters. The Question is why did the JRPP/Council Planners allow and pass this Development in the First instance just because it is a $20 million development it does not give these developers the right to go over the Locality Controls Set out in the draft LEP 2012 by then Kogarah Council, which as to this day has not yet been gazetted. Further more we were told through correspondence on the 5 October 2016 by the interim general manager Gail Connolly (who also was on the JRPP committee) that this matter (DA 227/2015) had now been finalised and cannot be reviewed by either Council or the JRPP. Then why is it that the developers can put in a Alteration and Additions amendment to the development, whilst the JRPP and Council cannot review the error made in stating that DA 227/2015 was "Consistent with FSR and height controls in the draft LEP 2012 in accordance with Councils building height and Locality controls which is Maximum Building Height 15 meters and FSR of 2:1.

   In the proposed development it states that it is consistent in height with the (5) storey building to the South East, (Rockdale Council now Bayside Council) which recently had telecom towers added to its roof, further increasing its height, may I say that this does not add density to the building, though it is part of a National telecommunications grid. Considering the building has a far greater land mass, and 70 not 99 units 300 car spaces not 167 and is built so traffic can exit from Russel Ave or Evans Street from Jamieson lane were it has a dedicated drive in and drive out driveways unlike Bonney Street with a single driveway proposed. And is the only Exit.
   Yes the Jamieson has Super-barn and eight other shops yet it provides the parking spaces to accommodate them. Where are the parking spaces for the proposed shops/cafe clientele of the Bonney st proposed development?
   And when the other side of Bonney st gets developed where will the residents, VISITORS and clientele be parking this should be addressed now before this development proceeds it is quite clear to anyone you talk to that councils 1.5 car spaces is quite inadequate for the present and to the future needs of the community.

   The roads and traffic report says it will have a minimum impact yet going to work is a daily chore as Rocky Point Rd leading to Brighton Le Sands And The Princes Hwy is a Car Park and as for (The proposal incorporates a density which is appropriate for this well located site, which enjoys excellent access to public transport, there is ONLY a BUS.

   Clause 104 :Traffic generating development.
   The proposed development is considered to be a Traffic Generating Development as more than 75 dwellings are proposed for the site, and we are told that it will have a minimum impact 200 plus vehicles going in and out of there and the noise that will be generated by the security gate opening and closing late at night and through the night not to mention the head lights beaming into the bedroom windows of the houses opposite the drive way I see there is no mention of the disruption this may cause.

   "Good Design" DA283/2016
   If 60% of dwellings achieve natural cross ventilation what do the remaining 40% achieve?
   And if 70% of proposed dwellings achieve sunlight access to there living rooms and private open spaces for at least 3 hrs a day on the 21 June (only 3 hrs what happened to the rest of the day) what do the remaining 30% achieve?

   In the (DA227/15) statement 4.5 page 57 states the proposal will have minimal visual impacts when compared to the approved development, and will not create any unreasonable adverse amenity impacts in relation to nearby properties, as discussed throughout.
   The visual and adverse amenity impacts are a 20m building with 99 units with an occupancy off around 220 people, minimum 200 vehicles (only 167 provided) entry only through Bonney st garbage collected in Bonney st where as in the previous DA it was to be collected on Rocky Point Road to minimise the noise generated by so many localised bins. And regards public transport all there is is a Bus generally full by the time it reaches Bonney st. The roads are already at there breaking point. The parking bays are full 99% of the time in Bonney st and the Sans Souci fruit world parking lot is full most of the time even though it has ceased trading 9 months ago also the coffee shop closed its doors yet this car park remains vibrant, why you may ask? Well it might be because there is a lack of parking already in this Locality. Broughton st doesn't have parking bays it is virtually a one lane vehicle drive through. It would be nice if the Pretty picture the developers are painting was true but in reality it's not. More Condensed housing, more congestion, more pollution through lack of infrastructure.
   
   Regards
   Stephen Tanti

6. I fully agree with the previous objections. I too feel that this development is setting a dangerous precedent for the area. I have not seen any plans to improve infrastructure in the area to support these huge developments along Rocky Point Road (and elsewhere in the area). The roads are still two lanes and as clearways only operate during peak hours there is continual congestion on Rocky Point road. No new schools. No new hospitals. No improved public transport to cater for the additional residents and putting more buses on already congested roads is not a solution.
   Additionally it is unbelievable that residents concerns appear to be ignored to the benefit of the developer and even planning laws are being flouted.

7. DA227/2015 – 283/2016 365-377 Rocky Point Rd, Sans Souci.

   I cannot understand how Council and JRPP have approved a development which exceeds Councils height limit. It should not be compared with the development across the road; The Jamison that site is bigger, has fewer units and has access via 3 streets. This proposed development is accessed via one street Bonney Street.

   Council should send this proposed development back to the drawing board and consider the surrounding residents who are the ratepayers for the Council. Residents would not be allowed to build a second level – let alone 5 levels, on their garage, so why is it different for developers to exceed height limits.

   I object to this development in its current form and highly object to the Additions and Alterations submitted.

   Residential Street, Bonney Street is greatly affected and residents can foresee what is going to happen with the increase of people, visitors, cars, no parking, noise, garbage collection – so why can’t Council see.
   
   As we do not have ward Councillors to represent the ratepayers I call upon Members of Parliament and IHAP to look into this matter to ensure that Council abides by the Council regulation that we as ratepayers have to abide by.

   Stuart Macpherson.

8. DA 283/2016 should not be approved as it is over the Georges River council height limit of 15 meters for this area.(At present the height limit is 10 meters or 3 levels as the new LEP has not been gazetted) If a homeowner has to abide by these planning laws why shouldn't developers abide by these laws also and why doesn't council enforce them.
   Georges River Council needs to listen to the residents in regards to traffic problems,loss of privacy,noise pollution and many more problems this development will cause.
   This development has caused many residents sleepless nights, stress and anxiety which they don't need.
   The developers are going overboard in our suburbs with overdevelopment all because of their greed.
   Shame on council if they allow DA 283/2016 DA 227/2015 to go ahead.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Georges River Council (Kogarah). 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