84 New Illawarra Road, Bexley North NSW 2207

Construction of part two and three storey residential flat building comprising 10 Residential units and part three and four storey residential flat building comprising 14 Residential units including basement

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website over 2 years ago. It was received by them 1 day earlier.

(Source: Bayside Council (Rockdale), reference DA-2017/371)

23 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Johanna Cordes commented

    4 storeys seem too high for the location considering it is right in between, and surrounded by, R2 zoned houses. The driveway onto Bexley Road seems a little dangerous as well considering it's is an extremely busy & dangerous road, prone to a lot of accidents particularly in that stretch of road.

  2. Cassandra Burns commented

    How is this possible? This is too high and to have the entry/exit on Bexley Road which is already prone to car accidents is ludicrous . Also children at the local school walk up and down and this would add to the already dangerous road that Bexley Road is between Shaw Street and Mainard Avenue . This was a single story building which would be better than a monstrosity of a building . I urge this to be amended to the single story it used to be with the entry/exit to lead out onto New Illawarra Road .

  3. Angela C commented

    Allowing a 4 storey development when properties immediately surrounding are R2 is not fair on those residents. Any car park access via Bexley Rd will be dangerous, interrupt the traffic and cause further congestion to an instection that is already hazardous and heavily conjested especially in peak hour

  4. Patricia Rosenberg commented

    It seems this development is going to cause multiple issues if it is approved as a 4 storey development. Height will be an eyesore and create traffic kaos if Bexley Road is the exit and entrance to the developments investigation is the main Road. The peak hours congestion on all roads leading to Bexley Road heading toward Bexley North will become gridlocked. An alternative access needs to be made to the new development, safety concerns for school children and pedestrians using the pathways for bus and train connections need to be considered along with the effect on the neighbouring R2 zoned residents .

  5. Judith McCabe commented

    I will not understand the mentality or reasoning of the planning administration at Rockdale Council if this application is approved!! How many more people, how many more cars will be residing in that small space?? The safety, height and infrastructure issues MUST be considered before any approval is to be given!! The traffic in Bexley Road is already beyond endurance (thanks to the failure of the M5) and this development will only add 'more insult to injury'!

  6. Michelle demkiw commented

    I ageee with the above comments. A driveway onto Bexley road sounds obstructive and dangerous. 4 stories also seems excessively high with little consideration for the existing residents.

  7. Michelle Thang commented

    There number of levels is too high for the location considering it is right in between, and surrounded by other houses. The driveway onto Bexley Road Is a safety hazard as well considering it's is an extremely busy , creating further traffic kaos & dangerous road, prone to a lot of accidents.

  8. Diti Zakkour commented

    Completely agree with everything that has been mentioned above and would also like to include the issues around shadowing and privacy concerns over neighbouring residential properties. 3-4 storeys high completely invades the privacy of backyards, back windows leading into family bedrooms and living areas where many young families reside.

    Thankfully occupier parking has been included, but how many individual spots? What is the ratio between apartment and allocated parking space? And how many visitor parking spots have been included? Not having enough parking for occupiers and visitors will severely impact surrounding streets which are aleady at a capacity considering the proximity to the shopping village/train station.

    The increased amount of occupiers will also increase traffic congestion in an already over congested and chaotic road.

  9. Cathy commented

    This Development is to big and will impact the residents in the area.
    It impacts the safety of the school children & the Privacy of the residents at their homes.
    Having the entry / exit on Bexley Rd will likely cause traffic jams as the intersection of Bexley Rd & Slade Rd are gateways to either the M5 or Earlwood.

  10. Jane Ciabattoni commented

    This is a very big development and will overshadow a lot of the existing residents in the area. I am also concerned about the existing infrastructure being able to cope with additional residents, cars etc. There is already congestion on Bexley Road in that area especially in peak hours. What additional amenities will be put in place to cope with additional residents.

  11. Nicky commented

    This is a concern for the area, that's currently a family based neighbourhood with low denisity R2 houses surrounded with lots of trees and parks. People love this area becouse we do not look like high denisity living. We have major issues currently with Bexley Rd congestion, not to mention the number of accidents that have occurred in the last 6 months. We have children walking to the local public school and high school students walking to the train. Has council considered any of these issues, not to mention the negivitive impact on the local residents. Parking is going to be a nightmare and cars will be parking on the streets, which already at times can be difficult. The privacy of local residents is going to be impacted due to the preposturous height and this development would alter the image of the area dramatically by plonking a high rise in the middle of low housing. I ask that council reconsider this application. Thanks

  12. Elaine Laurel commented

    A high rise apartment in this area is completely unjustified based on the low density zoning.

    There are safety and traffic issues as stated above.

    Please reconsider this build. It is detrimental to the area and surrounding infrastructure.

  13. Joanna from the Wolli Creek Preservation Society commented

    Increasing population density in the vicinity of Wolli Creek bushland is of great concern to the Wolli Creek Preservation Society. The bushland could be destroyed to provide more sportsfields and play grounds. And this new multi unit residential building may be small in comparison to what is currently being proposed by the NSW Government. Priority Precincts, areas suitable for development, have been declared around Turrella & Bardwell Park Stations. Objectors to high rise and to the damage it could bring to the bushland should attend the Government's community feedback session in Rockdale Library on Monday 24th July, 4.30 pm - 7.30 pm.

  14. Suzie Levy commented

    A four storey development in this position will have a major impact on the residents in the area. Traffic, parking and road safely are of major concern, not to mention privacy issues with a development of this size.

  15. Samih Ghunaim commented

    My reasons against this proposal:
    1. Both streets are already heavily impacted by traffic, instead of trying to resolve this issue council is planning to approve 2 new buildings in which will make the traffic situation worse.
    2. This zone is deemed by council as a floodzone and more importantly an R2 zone (doesn't legislation state that all buildings need to be 2 stories high or less? Yet this is a proposal for 3 and 4 story buildings).

  16. Abdellatif meqdadi commented

    The following are reasons against this DA
    it is R2 zone so how we allowing high density building in the neighborhood with already high traffic streets...so fix the infrastructure for the area and find solutions for this busy roads around it then approve new DA like this.

  17. Marianna commented

    I am not a resident, but I can see from the commentary, the neighbours do not wish for this development to proceed. If the land is R2, why would the owner apply for 3 or 4 storeys? We have zonings for a reason. Also, is this development justified? Does the local area require it, or is it just a matter of an owner wanting to capitalise on their land to sell for development? Council, please consider the remarks of the residents. We will have enough unit sites in the area with the Arncliffe/Banksia/Rockdale rezonings.

  18. Ingrid commented

    Bayside council are seeking ministerial approval to provide a monocultural group with a 21 year lease over the Bexley Bowling club site. It is proposed that the site will look to cater for well in excess of 700 people. Developments such as the one being and those coming on line in the not too distance future will ALL impact on traffic.

  19. Nathan Kearnes commented

    The proposed development should be rejected.
    It does not the objectives of the land zoning being 'low density residential' and 'context and setting that minimises any impact on the character and amenity of the area'.
    It does not comply with the height and floorspace requirements of R2 zoned land and the comments that the proposed development is consistent with existing and emerging character are misleading.
    The cumulative impact of the proposed development would set a precedence not in keeping with the objectives and requirements of the R2 land zone.
    The proposed development is inconsistent with the requirements of the DCP including: 'protect and enhance the character of the suburbs and neighbourhood'; visual amenity; street scape; setbacks; building design; tree removal.
    The site compatibility certificate is utilised in a way that is misleading with regard to building height (existing housing stock is predominately single storey); parking (not enough parking provided for each unit let alone visitors); built form and building design (not in keeping with existing housing stock).

  20. phoebe scali commented

    The cumulative effect of the non-compliance of numerous objectives and provisions of both the Rockdale Development Control Plan 2011 and the Rockdale LEP 2011 make this is an unsatisfactory proposed development.

  21. Nathan Kearnes commented

    I wish to lodge and objection to the proposed development DA-2017/371.

    The proposed development should be rejected given the following.

    It does not meet the objectives of the land zoning being 'low density residential' and in 'a context and setting that minimises any impact on the character and amenity of the area'.

    It does not comply with the height and floorspace requirements of R2 zoned land and the comments that the proposed development is consistent with the existing and emerging character of the area are misleading.

    The cumulative impact of the proposed development is significant and it would set a precedence for the area which is inconsistent with the objectives and requirements of the R2 land zoning.

    The proposed development is inconsistent with the requirements of the DCP including: 'protect and enhance the character of the suburbs and neighbourhood'; visual amenity; street scape; setbacks; building design; tree removal.

    The site compatibility certificate is utilised in a way that is misleading with regard to building height (existing housing stock is predominately single storey); parking (not enough parking provided for each unit let alone visitors); built form and building design (not in keeping with existing housing stock).

    In my opinion the Site Compatibility Certificate (SCC) should never have been granted for a development of this type in this area. I strongly disagree with the SCC specifically that the development is compatible with the surrounding land use (i.e. locating high density development within a low density setting).

    Further, the proposed development does not meet the Schedule 2 requirements of the SCC determination, specifically:
    1& 2. Height (New Illawarra Road is not a predominately 2 storey streetscape and Bexley Road is not a predominately 3 storey streetscape in the R2 land zoning);
    3. That final dwelling numbers are inappropriate (i.e. inconsistent with the surrounding low density land use) and parking is inadequate (i.e. not enough parking has been provided for residents and visitors) such that the consent authority should refuse or seek modification of the application
    4. That the consent authority in it's detailed assessment of the built form should reach the conclusion that it conflicts with the amenity of surrounding low density residential setting, the building design is not in keeping with the existing character of the streetscape of local R2 zone lands, that the heights proposed are inconsistent with existing amenity (as above), and that solar access and overshadowing of the neighbouring residences and public spaces will be significantly negatively affected.

    In summary, I believe the proposed development should be rejected on the following basis:
    1. Inconsistent with the Site Compatibility Certificate
    2. Inconsistent with the objectives and requirements of the R2 zoning of the subject site and surrounds
    3. Inconsistent with the objectives and requirements of the DCP
    4. Is of a height that is significantly inconsistent with the existing streetscapes
    5. Will have a significant cumulative impact to the local area and further afield
    6. Will have a significant visual impact
    7. Will have a significant impact on the amenity of the surrounding land uses and local community

    Lastly, I am of the opinion that the application for the proposed development is intentionally misleading and that the consent authority should take this into careful consideration during it's assessment and determination. There is misleading information concerning (at least) the following information:
    1. Height and predominant local street scape
    2. Existing and emerging character of the local area
    3. Visual impact
    4. Built form and building design
    5. Cumulative impact
    6. Impact on the existing amenity of the area

  22. Emmanuel commented

    Seriously people .... it`s fine for other Sydney suburbs do have development but when it comes to our suburb then it`s not, Traffic is mentioned as a concern but we already have traffic here now so there`s not much difference. People saying entrance and exit is dangerous ..... how much difference is there to having the service station there with cars entering and exiting all day for fuel ? seems the same to me ...... new development there compared to what we have now is better.... an old shabby servo two red brick 70`s homes a couple of old run down fibro shacks and one old shop residents...... not much loss at all if you are logical and open minded, will look much nicer than what we have there now.

  23. Noah Faber commented

    What is the status of this development? Surely they cant build something like this here. No one wants this

  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