PlanningAlerts

41 Comments

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

1. Outrageous, I oppose this development. Not only is this a ridiculous size ambition for our gorgeous low lying suburbs, but the developer wants to build some kind of shopping mall in such a small area. This street is linked up with the traffic lights near the Bexley train station which is already a bad area in terms of congestion which peaks from many times and even on weekends on this spot. Considering the location is near an intersection as well will also cause problems in all directions. This will increase our already existing traffic congested roads in an area already surrounded by a local shopping complex, it will also affect many businesses there in the nice little small hub.
   Think of all of the parking issues as well, how will they manage this?
   I hope the council does not approve this development.

2. This is happening all over Sydney. I suggest that anyone who opposes the out of control building that is going on (eg Wolli Creek, Canterbury esp Canterbury Road) join a local group opposing this (there are a lot on FB already such as High Rise Unwise). There is no infrastructure planning that is put in place prior to the rezoning and the developers going hell for leather in their pursuit of cash. There is no thought as to whether local schools can manage extra students, whether roads can cope with the extra cars, whether there is enough green space to prevent the people living in these batter hen towers from going spare. I also oppose this development. It's just another example of building without your brain in Sydney.
   Victoria

3. I also do not support this development. The location/intersection is well known for traffic congestion problems. There is no mention of additional parking and current parking would be insufficient parking to accommodate the increased demand. We do not need more retail/food outlets in this area. Any approval of high rise will set a precedent for the rest of the area which is under threat by the proposed priority precincts. No one is addressing the bigger problem of infrastructure in the area and until this is addressed residents will continue to oppose high density developments such as this one.

4. Already Bexley North is a travel bottleneck for cars, the trains are at capacity during commuter times, and all-day parking has invaded the streets for several hundred metres from the station. All increased density should be rejected until additional infrastructure, particularly for transport, is established. With the prospect of Priority Precincts being spread up the East Hills line in the future it is well past time that the cumulative effect of new developments on schools, sewerage and water, and other vital infrastructure was a key feature of planning. The ad doc approval of individual projects, where these effects cannot be taken adequately into account simply has to stop. We would all be in favour of overall planning in which e.g. additional community facilities are identified and mandated BEFORE any new developments with increased populations are allowed to proceed.

   Please do not approve this development.

5. What an absolute joke of a DA. This is a thoroughly unsuitable proposal - have you people even visited this location? Traffic is already heavily congested and this excessive development would only further ruin the amenity of the suburb.

   I strongly object to this proposal. Please do not allow this over-development to proceed.

6. I oppose this development. As a resident that lives directly behind the proposal, how can you allow such a tall building that will completely block out the afternoon sun. Our privacy will also be lost as the proposed buildings will be built with no setback and considerably higher than current apartment blocks. Current traffic congestion is also a problem and by allowing such a large development this will worsen the situation. We chose to live and raise a family in Bexley North as it is a quiet and low lying suburb and by allowing developments such as these you are destroying the family/ community feel.

7. I oppose this development. The area down at Bexley North is already struggling. The traffic congestion is bad enough without this over develoment! It doesn't have the infrastructure in place and I doubt the people involved in the decision making have even been to the area to see what we have to put up with. It would have such a negative impact on the area.

8. I oppose this development. Absolutely and utterly ridiculous. How can council think that this could possibly be of benefit to the community? The area is already SO congested. This would only make that worse. Please stop only thinking about the financial benefit for the council and start GENUINELY thinking about our quality of life.

9. I believe this is a terrible proposal. I have lived in Bexley North for ten years. Over this time I have observed the congestion at the intersection at Slade Rd and Bexley Rd grow increasingly worse. This development will make the traffic unworkable and will have a detrimental effect on the residents of the suburb. Bexley North is already well served with shops and amenities. This will have a negative impact on the community and will only benefit the developers. Very disappointing if the council approve this.

10. Details of this development are insufficient.
    Is this 7 storeys above ground or does the 7 storeys include 3 basement levels (i.e. 4 storey + 3 basement).
    Traffic management needs to be considered as this intersection is highly congested.
    How many residences are planned in this development? How much car parking is being proposed? This information should be supplied whilst the application is open for comment.

11. I am a resident of Bexly North. I understand and appreciate the need for increased development near public transport. This development appears well designed and the uses will make a positive contribution to the local village. However, the proposed breach in density and height limit by 9.6m (43%) over the maximum permissible height appears excessive and breaches council's identified statutory controls for the existing context. Perhaps the building mass can have an extruded height limit up to 16m (which is permissible under the LEP) and then be recessive a maximum of two upper floors. This would achieve a more suitable building bulk and improve visual and sunlight amenity to the adjoining low scale dwellings along Sarsfield court (who would be the most adversely affected by this development). Council should also propose an effective long-term traffic strategy for the local road network which is under increasing pressure, and cannot be necessarily solved by private developments alone.
    The application breaches a number of council controls. If any variation on staturtory controls can be considered based on a voluntary planning agreement, then the result must be fair, reasonable and not lead to adverse community outcomes. Council has the opportunity to demonstrate an equitable process and due diligence towards the community as a whole with this proposal. The outcome can be dynamic and positive for the local village of Bexley North, if Council maintains the integrity of the identified controls it has in place under the LEP and DCP.

12. Ill thought out development in a totally unsuitable area. Congestion at those lights is terrible, esp at both peak hours and the school run. Over-development is now a daily occurrence in Bexley/BP/Earlwood. We need to say no to these developments and fight to keep our suburbs low rise.

13. I totally oppose this development for all the reasons listed in the previous comments. What's the point of having Council rules and regulations for building height it they are to be ignored anyway? Please don't destroy our suburbs just to please developers.

14. This is an outrageous application. The roads will be unable to cope with this. It is not unusual during peak hour traffic for it to take about 10 minutes to travel a 1km distance from the intersection of Slade road and Bexley road and the other side of slade road in Bardwell Park. It is bumper to bumper. This application solely meets the needs of the developer not the residents.

15. The bulk & scale of this development is outrageous & it’s just stage 1 of the proposed development.
    I really feel sorry for the people who live near this proposed development. They are going to lose their privacy and be overshadowed. Council doesn’t care about the value of their homes, but in reality, it’s going to be affected. Unless their properties get rezoned.
    The traffic in the general vicinity is going to be chaotic if this DA is approved. There is also another proposed unit development known as 84 New Illawarra Rd that has 2 street frontages one of which is on Bexley Road, Bexley North. It is approximately 210m away from this proposed development (in a straight line). If this is approved its going to obviously add to the traffic congestion. I would assume that not many people who know about this development would even realise about the one at New Illawarra Road/Bexley Road.
    I have noticed on the Council’s website in relation to this DA that the application was lodged on 27/10/2017. There is not a date listed in regards to when the notification to adjoining owners was sent, nor is there a list of adjoining owners who have been notified of this development. I also noticed that there is no date listed for when the application is open for public comment.
    It makes you wonder!
    I also wonder what kind of clientele would be expected to reside in the 6 storey, 66 room MOTEL.
    I oppose this development.

16. This is a terrible proposal. I have observed the high levels of congestion at the intersection at Slade Rd and Bexley Rd grow increasingly worse over the last 5 years. Bexley Road already has major traffic congestion most of the day and night. This development will make the traffic even more unworkable and will have a detrimental effect on the residents of the suburb. Bexley North has many shops and amenities. In my opinion the community needs a lot of things but more shops and high rise apartments are not on the list.

17. I am a business owner at this intersection. I strongly oppose this development. Traffic is horrendous as it is. Trying to exit the car park on the corner of Bexley and Slade Rds at peak hours or school run times is dufficult and often dangerous. Drivers often block the turn off despite the traffic markings. The thought of such a huge development with its associated increased traffic and foot traffic, without better infrastructure to accommodate it, is ridiculous.

18. It seems there is a rush to over develop sites near the rail corridors. Whilst it might make sense on paper, a good planner would only have to interview locals and observe the short comings with the existing infrastructure to realise that this development would only compound existing problems. We already have traffic problems in proximity to the use of the M5 and congestion through Bardwell Park and Earlwood particularly in the extended peak hours which seem to be also developing. I would not be in favour of this development as it stands, as it seems to serve developers rather than the community in which it is placed.

19. This would be a disaster for the local community and traffic in the area so in my opinion definately a NO NO.

20. Are you people really going to do this? Are our schools, roads, bushland and community CAN NOT COPE for yet another sun and sky covering tower? Our public schools and Catholic schools are at capacity. Driving on Slade Road during peak can take 20 mins just to move out of Slade to Bexley Road - traffic can go from Slade Road Bexley North past Stotts Avenue - one lane nightmare. My reasons opposing the development are listed as follows:

    1. The proposed development replaces a two-storey hotel/motel with a 9 storey mixed use development and 6 storey hotel immediately adjacent to a low density two-storey residential street. Even allowing for the size of the site, the proposal exceeds the maximum height limit in the Rockdale Local Environmental Plan 2011 by 9.4m. There is no reason to approve such a height which would be well above nearby properties. The proposal has a floor space to site ration of 2.61:1, well above the guidelines even allowing for the large site. The proposal is an unacceptable and unjustified overdevelopment of this site.

    2. The existing mixed use developments on Slade and Bexley Roads are a maximum of 5 storeys. This proposal exceeds its neighbours by 4 storeys and this results in the proposal presenting as a huge, overbearing block far exceeding any adjoining development.

    3. As shown in the shadow diagrams and discussed in the application, because of the excessive heights there would be a significant constant overshadowing onto the block of residential flats immediately to the south of the development. This is unacceptable.

    4. As discussed in the application, the soil on the site is potentially contaminated which will adversely impact on the proposal to develop apartments on the site. This must be investigated and the impacts addressed before any development is approved, let alone a development of this scale.

    5. Contrary to the claims in the application, there is potential impact from the construction and from the proposed underground parking on the local water table. The site is not suitable for such a large development or for one with underground car-parks.

    6. The proposed hotel faces directly onto the existing residential flat development to the south of the site and will adversely impact on the views to and from this development. The proposal does not provide any means to minimise this impact.

    7. The roads in this area are significantly congested during and outside of peak hour, and in particular at the intersection where this development is proposed. This will add a significant volume of extra cars onto Slade Road, a local road already at capacity. The proposal will also direct all car movements for the apartment complex basement parking, onto Sarsfield Circuit, a local residential street which will have a negative impact on existing residents.

    8. The proposed mixed use development with additional shops, and the expansion of hotel activities will adversely impact on the capacity of, as well as entry and exit into, the small existing Council car park. The application does not provide mechanisms to minimise this impact on the existing shopper car park.

    9. This proposal is in addition to proposed Priority Precincts at Bardwell Park, Turrella and Earlwood which will significantly increase residential densities along this train line. The train services on the East Hills line are already running at capacity with no upgrades planned to service this increased need. This overdevelopment will add to this impact.

    10. Despite the identification of at the Priority Precincts at adjoining train stations there is currently no State wide planning for infrastructure needs arising from these proposals (e.g. primary, high schools, parks, hospitals). The cumulative impacts of the Priority Precincts must be addressed before applications of this nature are considered for approval.

    11. The development is near to the Wolli Creek Regional Park. Increased denisty of accommodation, residential or hotel, presents a risk to the park through increased use of the park and via an increased risk from infrastructure failure.

    12. There appears to be no adequate planning for waste removal and other needs from the mixed use development and motel.

    13. The proposal does not meet deep soil requirements and therefore is not able to provide any significant planting or trees other than on the rooftop of the proposed mixed use development. This is completely inadequate on such a site. Landscaping, including trees, at street level is necessary for the aesthetics and amenity of the area.

21. I am astounded at the idea that Bayside Council would approve this application. I strongly oppose this development at Bexley North as it exceeds its neighbours by 4 storeys and this results in the proposal presenting as a huge overbearing block far exceeding any adjoining development. The traffic on Slade Rd over the years has become horrendous at peak times particularly for residents who live close to the lights at Bexley North. We definitely do not need more retail shops here.

22. I unequivocally oppose this development. This is overdevelopment of an area that is already choked with traffic. Where are the extra schools, hospitals and public transport options to provide amenity for the residents? Where are the cycle ways and parks? What is the demand for a hotel in this area?

23. I oppose this development application.

    The application is well above the height guidelines for the area without any benefit to current residents and significant risks and impositions. The size is inappropriate for the site, particularly with a view to the local roads which are already congested, and with a view to shading and over-bearing current shops and residences.

    Contrary to the claims in the application, there is potential impact from the construction and from the proposed underground parking on the local water table. There is also a risk of flooding of any basements.

    The Wolli Regional Park is very close to the site. The creek and the park need protection from over-use, and risks of extra pollution. I oppose increasing population density this close to the Wolli Regional park be it in apartments or hotels. I even more strongly oppose increasing population density to the extent proposed.

24. As usual, mammals are listened to ahead of the other living things. I totally oppose this development, and other developments that increase space available to humans at the expense of animals
    regards
    Paul

25. Re: DA-2017/541 

    I strongly oppose this application for the following reasons. 

    1. The proposed development replaces a two-storey hotel/motel with a 9 storey mixed use development and 6 storey hotel immediately adjacent to a low density two-storey residential street. Even allowing for the size of the site, the proposal exceeds the maximum height limit in the Rockdale Local Environmental Plan 2011 by 9.4m. There is no reason to approve such a height which would be well above nearby properties. The proposal has a floor space to site ration of 2.61:1, well above the guidelines even allowing for the large site. The proposal is an unacceptable and unjustified overdevelopment of this site. 

    2. The existing mixed use developments on Slade and Bexley Roads are a maximum of 5 storeys. This proposal exceeds its neighbours by 4 storeys and this results in the proposal presenting as a huge, overbearing block far exceeding any adjoining development. 

    3. As shown in the shadow diagrams and discussed in the application, because of the excessive heights there would be a significant constant overshadowing onto the block of residential flats immediately to the south of the development. This is unacceptable. 

    4. As discussed in the application, the soil on the site is potentially contaminated which will adversely impact on the proposal to develop apartments on the site. This must be investigated and the impacts addressed before any development is approved, let alone a development of this scale. 

    5. Contrary to the claims in the application, there is potential impact from the construction and from the proposed underground parking on the local water table. The site is not suitable for such a large development or for one with underground car-parks. 

    6. The proposed hotel faces directly onto the existing residential flat development to the south of the site and will adversely impact on the views to and from this development. The proposal does not provide any means to minimise this impact. 

    7. The roads in this area are significantly congested during and outside of peak hour, and in particular at the intersection where this development is proposed. This will add a significant volume of extra cars onto Slade Road, a local road already at capacity. The proposal will also direct all car movements for the apartment complex basement parking, onto Sarsfield Circuit, a local residential street which will have a negative impact on existing residents. 

    8.  The proposed mixed use development with additional shops, and the expansion of hotel activities will adversely impact on the capacity of, as well as entry and exit into, the small existing Council car park. The application does not provide mechanisms to minimise this impact on the existing shopper car park. 

    9. This proposal is in addition to proposed Priority Precincts at Bardwell Park, Turrella and Earlwood which will significantly increase residential densities along this train line. The train services on the East Hills line are already running at capacity with no upgrades planned to service this increased need. This overdevelopment will add to this impact. 

    10. Despite the identification of at the Priority Precincts at adjoining train stations there is currently no State wide planning for infrastructure needs arising from these proposals (e.g. primary, high schools, parks, hospitals). The  cumulative impacts of the Priority Precincts must be addressed before applications of this nature are considered for approval. 

    11. The development is near to the Wolli Creek Regional Park. Increased denisty of accommodation, residential or hotel, presents a risk to the park through increased use of the park and via an increased risk from infrastructure failure. 

    12.  There appears to be no adequate planning for waste removal and other needs from the mixed use development and motel. 

    13. The proposal does not meet deep soil requirements and therefore is not able to provide any significant planting or trees other than on the rooftop of the proposed mixed use development. This is completely inadequate on such a site. Landscaping, including trees, at street level is necessary for the aesthetics and amenity of the area. 

    Yours truly,
    Julie Muir
    Earlwood.

26. Re: DA-2017/541

    I totally oppose this development application.

    This application is well above the height guidelines for the area. The size is inappropriate for the site, and it is way too high particularly to the local houses and units. The roads are already congested in peak hour and this will make it worse. The parking is limited at the best of times.

    Where are the new schools and hospitals?

27. This area is already over developed & not to forget that application DA-2013/103A was approved by this council within a period of a month from the point of amendments. That application with this one seems to total 122 apartments & an additional 66 rooms for the motel. All within a 'stones throw' from each other.
    This application should be rejected as the building is extremely bulk and excessive. The additional noise and traffic congestion on roads that haven't been upgraded in over 5 decades. No allowance to be able to widen the current roads surrounding this development. Loss of privacy to surrounding homes. Negative impact on the value of the surrounding homes. Also concerning is the 66 rooms for the motel, what type of people will it attract..? I strongly oppose this development.

28. I object to this development proposal. This proposed development will increase traffic chaos in an already very busy intersection at Slade and Bexley Roads and the parking area of our local shopping area. Heavy traffic accessing the M5 and surrounding suburbs will be increased. This route frequently becomes an escape route for traffic when the M5 tunnel is blocked/closed.
    The proposed scale of this development is far too big, the apartment block is twice as tall as anything existing in Bexley North which is in opposition with the neighbourhood feel, which is residential homes and a few low rise apartments. Don’t turn Bexley North into another over developed suburb jammed with traffic.

29. I would be terribly disappointed about losing views, breeze and sunlight if I were living in the apartments and homes next to the proposed Development. I have lived in Earlwood (adjacent to Hartill-Law) for about ten years and have noticed that traffic has tripled and pollution levels increased since the Wolli Creek and Turrella developments - the proposed Development is not only going to impact on traffic at Slade and Bexley Rds but outlying areas also. Please do not allow this Development to go ahead.

30. I oppose this DA on the basis that it will have a negative impact on already congested traffic in the area, the streetscape of the area and is an overdevelopment of the site.

    Council have a number of developments and leases that are considering for the local bexley North area and if approved will see bottleneck traffic conjestion in an already problem area.

    I am strongly opposed the approval of this development size and scale of this development.

31. Dear Sir/Madam,

    Re: DA-2017/541

    I strongly oppose this application for the following reasons.

    1. The proposed development replaces a two-storey hotel/motel with a 9 storey mixed use development and 6 storey hotel immediately adjacent to a low density two-storey residential street. Even allowing for the size of the site, the proposal exceeds the maximum height limit in the Rockdale Local Environmental Plan 2011 by 9.4m. There is no reason to approve such a height which would be well above nearby properties. The proposal has a floor space to site ration of 2.61:1, well above the guidelines even allowing for the large site. The proposal is an unacceptable and unjustified overdevelopment of this site.

    2. The existing mixed use developments on Slade and Bexley Roads are a maximum of 5 storeys. This proposal exceeds its neighbours by 4 storeys and this results in the proposal presenting as a huge, overbearing block far exceeding any adjoining development.

    3. As shown in the shadow diagrams and discussed in the application, because of the excessive heights there would be a significant constant overshadowing onto the block of residential flats immediately to the south of the development. This is unacceptable.

    4. As discussed in the application, the soil on the site is potentially contaminated which will adversely impact on the proposal to develop apartments on the site. This must be investigated and the impacts addressed before any development is approved, let alone a development of this scale.

    5. Contrary to the claims in the application, there is potential impact from the construction and from the proposed underground parking on the local water table. The site is not suitable for such a large development or for one with underground car-parks.

    6. The proposed hotel faces directly onto the existing residential flat development to the south of the site and will adversely impact on the views to and from this development. The proposal does not provide any means to minimise this impact.

    7. The roads in this area are significantly congested during and outside of peak hour, and in particular at the intersection where this development is proposed. This will add a significant volume of extra cars onto Slade Road, a local road already at capacity. The proposal will also direct all car movements for the apartment complex basement parking, onto Sarsfield Circuit, a local residential street which will have a negative impact on existing residents.

    8. The proposed mixed use development with additional shops, and the expansion of hotel activities will adversely impact on the capacity of, as well as entry and exit into, the small existing Council car park. The application does not provide mechanisms to minimise this impact on the existing shopper car park.

    9. This proposal is in addition to proposed Priority Precincts at Bardwell Park, Turrella and Earlwood which will significantly increase residential densities along this train line. The train services on the East Hills line are already running at capacity with no upgrades planned to service this increased need. This overdevelopment will add to this impact.

    10. Despite the identification of at the Priority Precincts at adjoining train stations there is currently no State wide planning for infrastructure needs arising from these proposals (e.g. primary, high schools, parks, hospitals). The cumulative impacts of the Priority Precincts must be addressed before applications of this nature are considered for approval.

    11. The development is near to the Wolli Creek Regional Park. Increased denisty of accommodation, residential or hotel, presents a risk to the park through increased use of the park and via an increased risk from infrastructure failure.

    12. There appears to be no adequate planning for waste removal and other needs from the mixed use development and motel.

    13. The proposal does not meet deep soil requirements and therefore is not able to provide any significant planting or trees other than on the rooftop of the proposed mixed use development. This is completely inadequate on such a site. Landscaping, including trees, at street level is necessary for the aesthetics and amenity of the area.

    Yours truly,
    Rubina

32. Dear Sir/Madam,

    Re: DA-2017/541

    We chose to live and raise a family in Bardwell Park as it was a quiet and low lying suburb and by allowing developments such as these you are destroying the family and community aspect of the area.

    I strongly oppose this application for the following reasons.

    1. The proposed development replaces a two-storey hotel/motel with a 9 storey mixed use development and 6 storey hotel immediately adjacent to a low density two-storey residential street. Even allowing for the size of the site, the proposal exceeds the maximum height limit in the Rockdale Local Environmental Plan 2011 by 9.4m. There is no reason to approve such a height which would be well above nearby properties. The proposal has a floor space to site ration of 2.61:1, well above the guidelines even allowing for the large site. The proposal is an unacceptable and unjustified overdevelopment of this site.

    2. The existing mixed use developments on Slade and Bexley Roads are a maximum of 5 storeys. This proposal exceeds its neighbours by 4 storeys and this results in the proposal presenting as a huge, overbearing block far exceeding any adjoining development.

    3. As shown in the shadow diagrams and discussed in the application, because of the excessive heights there would be a significant constant overshadowing onto the block of residential flats immediately to the south of the development. This is unacceptable.

    4. As discussed in the application, the soil on the site is potentially contaminated which will adversely impact on the proposal to develop apartments on the site. This must be investigated and the impacts addressed before any development is approved, let alone a development of this scale.

    5. Contrary to the claims in the application, there is potential impact from the construction and from the proposed underground parking on the local water table. The site is not suitable for such a large development or for one with underground car-parks.

    6. The proposed hotel faces directly onto the existing residential flat development to the south of the site and will adversely impact on the views to and from this development. The proposal does not provide any means to minimise this impact.

    7. The roads in this area are significantly congested during and outside of peak hour, and in particular at the intersection where this development is proposed. This will add a significant volume of extra cars onto Slade Road, a local road already at capacity. The proposal will also direct all car movements for the apartment complex basement parking, onto Sarsfield Circuit, a local residential street which will have a negative impact on existing residents.

    8. The proposed mixed use development with additional shops, and the expansion of hotel activities will adversely impact on the capacity of, as well as entry and exit into, the small existing Council car park. The application does not provide mechanisms to minimise this impact on the existing shopper car park.

    9. This proposal is in addition to proposed Priority Precincts at Bardwell Park, Turrella and Earlwood which will significantly increase residential densities along this train line. The train services on the East Hills line are already running at capacity with no upgrades planned to service this increased need. This overdevelopment will add to this impact.

    10. Despite the identification of at the Priority Precincts at adjoining train stations there is currently no State wide planning for infrastructure needs arising from these proposals (e.g. primary, high schools, parks, hospitals). The cumulative impacts of the Priority Precincts must be addressed before applications of this nature are considered for approval.

    11. The development is near to the Wolli Creek Regional Park. Increased denisty of accommodation, residential or hotel, presents a risk to the park through increased use of the park and via an increased risk from infrastructure failure.

    12. There appears to be no adequate planning for waste removal and other needs from the mixed use development and motel.

    13. The proposal does not meet deep soil requirements and therefore is not able to provide any significant planting or trees other than on the rooftop of the proposed mixed use development. This is completely inadequate on such a site. Landscaping, including trees, at street level is necessary for the aesthetics and amenity of the area.

    Yours truly,
    Nia

33. I object on following basis
    1. overshadowing of neighbouring units in 22 Sarsfield blocking sunlight due to its proposed height along with privacy and creating a wind tunnel between buildings. Height should be restricted to 3 storeys
    2.height not consistent with surrounds and area..too high
    3 parking from new units and visitors - already constrained on streets and public carpark. Most units may have an allocated parking spot but there is usually 2 cars per unit occupant hence on street parking probs
    4 noise from increase residents and motel guests from within units/motel and entering exiting
    5 traffic from new residences and motel/hotel guest. Slade rd is already banked up at pm peak
    6 Retail shops facing Sarsfield will create additional noise and parking issues....a new commercial retail precinct
    7 constraints on council services, parking, libraries, parks, open space, utilities like power gas water needs upgrading ?....M5/ West Connex tunnel underneath?
    8 motel of such size will have guest arriving and departing at all hours - noise and traffic
    9 Bexley north should not become a Wolli Creek or Hurstville filled with unit towers

34. Dear Sir/Madam,

    Re: DA-2017/541

    I strongly oppose this application for the following reasons.

    1. The proposed development replaces a two-storey hotel/motel with a 9 storey mixed use development and 6 storey hotel immediately adjacent to a low density two-storey residential street. Even allowing for the size of the site, the proposal exceeds the maximum height limit in the Rockdale Local Environmental Plan 2011 by 9.4m. There is no reason to approve such a height which would be well above nearby properties. The proposal has a floor space to site ration of 2.61:1, well above the guidelines even allowing for the large site. The proposal is an unacceptable and unjustified overdevelopment of this site.

    2. The existing mixed use developments on Slade and Bexley Roads are a maximum of 5 storeys. This proposal exceeds its neighbours by 4 storeys and this results in the proposal presenting as a huge, overbearing block far exceeding any adjoining development.

    3. As shown in the shadow diagrams and discussed in the application, because of the excessive heights there would be a significant constant overshadowing onto the block of residential flats immediately to the south of the development. This is unacceptable.

    4. As discussed in the application, the soil on the site is potentially contaminated which will adversely impact on the proposal to develop apartments on the site. This must be investigated and the impacts addressed before any development is approved, let alone a development of this scale.

    5. Contrary to the claims in the application, there is potential impact from the construction and from the proposed underground parking on the local water table. The site is not suitable for such a large development or for one with underground car-parks.

    6. The proposed hotel faces directly onto the existing residential flat development to the south of the site and will adversely impact on the views to and from this development. The proposal does not provide any means to minimise this impact.

    7. The roads in this area are significantly congested during and outside of peak hour, and in particular at the intersection where this development is proposed. This will add a significant volume of extra cars onto Slade Road, a local road already at capacity. The proposal will also direct all car movements for the apartment complex basement parking, onto Sarsfield Circuit, a local residential street which will have a negative impact on existing residents.

    8. The proposed mixed use development with additional shops, and the expansion of hotel activities will adversely impact on the capacity of, as well as entry and exit into, the small existing Council car park. The application does not provide mechanisms to minimise this impact on the existing shopper car park.

    9. This proposal is in addition to proposed Priority Precincts at Bardwell Park, Turrella and Earlwood which will significantly increase residential densities along this train line. The train services on the East Hills line are already running at capacity with no upgrades planned to service this increased need. This overdevelopment will add to this impact.

    10. Despite the identification of at the Priority Precincts at adjoining train stations there is currently no State wide planning for infrastructure needs arising from these proposals (e.g. primary, high schools, parks, hospitals). The cumulative impacts of the Priority Precincts must be addressed before applications of this nature are considered for approval.

    11. The development is near to the Wolli Creek Regional Park. Increased denisty of accommodation, residential or hotel, presents a risk to the park through increased use of the park and via an increased risk from infrastructure failure.

    12. There appears to be no adequate planning for waste removal and other needs from the mixed use development and motel.

    13. The proposal does not meet deep soil requirements and therefore is not able to provide any significant planting or trees other than on the rooftop of the proposed mixed use development. This is completely inadequate on such a site. Landscaping, including trees, at street level is necessary for the aesthetics and amenity of the area.

    Yours truly,

    Dennis
    Bardwell Park
    21/11/2017

35. Dear Sir/Madam,

    Re: DA-2017/541

    I strongly oppose this application for the following reasons.

    1. The proposed development replaces a two-storey hotel/motel with a 9 storey mixed use development and 6 storey hotel immediately adjacent to a low density two-storey residential street. Even allowing for the size of the site, the proposal exceeds the maximum height limit in the Rockdale Local Environmental Plan 2011 by 9.4m. There is no reason to approve such a height which would be well above nearby properties. The proposal has a floor space to site ration of 2.61:1, well above the guidelines even allowing for the large site. The proposal is an unacceptable and unjustified overdevelopment of this site.

    2. The existing mixed use developments on Slade and Bexley Roads are a maximum of 5 storeys. This proposal exceeds its neighbours by 4 storeys and this results in the proposal presenting as a huge, overbearing block far exceeding any adjoining development.

    3. As shown in the shadow diagrams and discussed in the application, because of the excessive heights there would be a significant constant overshadowing onto the block of residential flats immediately to the south of the development. This is unacceptable.

    4. As discussed in the application, the soil on the site is potentially contaminated which will adversely impact on the proposal to develop apartments on the site. This must be investigated and the impacts addressed before any development is approved, let alone a development of this scale.

    5. Contrary to the claims in the application, there is potential impact from the construction and from the proposed underground parking on the local water table. The site is not suitable for such a large development or for one with underground car-parks.

    6. The proposed hotel faces directly onto the existing residential flat development to the south of the site and will adversely impact on the views to and from this development. The proposal does not provide any means to minimise this impact.

    7. The roads in this area are significantly congested during and outside of peak hour, and in particular at the intersection where this development is proposed. This will add a significant volume of extra cars onto Slade Road, a local road already at capacity. The proposal will also direct all car movements for the apartment complex basement parking, onto Sarsfield Circuit, a local residential street which will have a negative impact on existing residents.

    8. The proposed mixed use development with additional shops, and the expansion of hotel activities will adversely impact on the capacity of, as well as entry and exit into, the small existing Council car park. The application does not provide mechanisms to minimise this impact on the existing shopper car park.

    9. This proposal is in addition to proposed Priority Precincts at Bardwell Park, Turrella and Earlwood which will significantly increase residential densities along this train line. The train services on the East Hills line are already running at capacity with no upgrades planned to service this increased need. This overdevelopment will add to this impact.

    10. Despite the identification of at the Priority Precincts at adjoining train stations there is currently no State wide planning for infrastructure needs arising from these proposals (e.g. primary, high schools, parks, hospitals). The cumulative impacts of the Priority Precincts must be addressed before applications of this nature are considered for approval.

    11. The development is near to the Wolli Creek Regional Park. Increased denisty of accommodation, residential or hotel, presents a risk to the park through increased use of the park and via an increased risk from infrastructure failure.

    12. There appears to be no adequate planning for waste removal and other needs from the mixed use development and motel.

    13. The proposal does not meet deep soil requirements and therefore is not able to provide any significant planting or trees other than on the rooftop of the proposed mixed use development. This is completely inadequate on such a site. Landscaping, including trees, at street level is necessary for the aesthetics and amenity of the area.

    Yours truly,
    Rubina

36. Dear Sir/Madam,

    Re: DA-2017/541

    I strongly oppose this application for the following reasons.

    1. The proposed development replaces a two-storey hotel/motel with a 9 storey mixed use development and 6 storey hotel immediately adjacent to a low density two-storey residential street. Even allowing for the size of the site, the proposal exceeds the maximum height limit in the Rockdale Local Environmental Plan 2011 by 9.4m. There is no reason to approve such a height which would be well above nearby properties. The proposal has a floor space to site ration of 2.61:1, well above the guidelines even allowing for the large site. The proposal is an unacceptable and unjustified overdevelopment of this site.

    2. The existing mixed use developments on Slade and Bexley Roads are a maximum of 5 storeys. This proposal exceeds its neighbours by 4 storeys and this results in the proposal presenting as a huge, overbearing block far exceeding any adjoining development.

    3. As shown in the shadow diagrams and discussed in the application, because of the excessive heights there would be a significant constant overshadowing onto the block of residential flats immediately to the south of the development. This is unacceptable.

    4. As discussed in the application, the soil on the site is potentially contaminated which will adversely impact on the proposal to develop apartments on the site. This must be investigated and the impacts addressed before any development is approved, let alone a development of this scale.

    5. Contrary to the claims in the application, there is potential impact from the construction and from the proposed underground parking on the local water table. The site is not suitable for such a large development or for one with underground car-parks.

    6. The proposed hotel faces directly onto the existing residential flat development to the south of the site and will adversely impact on the views to and from this development. The proposal does not provide any means to minimise this impact.

    7. The roads in this area are significantly congested during and outside of peak hour, and in particular at the intersection where this development is proposed. This will add a significant volume of extra cars onto Slade Road, a local road already at capacity. The proposal will also direct all car movements for the apartment complex basement parking, onto Sarsfield Circuit, a local residential street which will have a negative impact on existing residents.

    8. The proposed mixed use development with additional shops, and the expansion of hotel activities will adversely impact on the capacity of, as well as entry and exit into, the small existing Council car park. The application does not provide mechanisms to minimise this impact on the existing shopper car park.

    9. This proposal is in addition to proposed Priority Precincts at Bardwell Park, Turrella and Earlwood which will significantly increase residential densities along this train line. The train services on the East Hills line are already running at capacity with no upgrades planned to service this increased need. This overdevelopment will add to this impact.

    10. Despite the identification of at the Priority Precincts at adjoining train stations there is currently no State wide planning for infrastructure needs arising from these proposals (e.g. primary, high schools, parks, hospitals). The cumulative impacts of the Priority Precincts must be addressed before applications of this nature are considered for approval.

    11. The development is near to the Wolli Creek Regional Park. Increased denisty of accommodation, residential or hotel, presents a risk to the park through increased use of the park and via an increased risk from infrastructure failure.

    12. There appears to be no adequate planning for waste removal and other needs from the mixed use development and motel.

    13. The proposal does not meet deep soil requirements and therefore is not able to provide any significant planting or trees other than on the rooftop of the proposed mixed use development. This is completely inadequate on such a site. Landscaping, including trees, at street level is necessary for the aesthetics and amenity of the area.

    I absolutely agree with these remarks and strongly oppose this development proposal.
    Regards
    Elaine

37. Dear Sir/Madam,

    Re: DA-2017/541

    I strongly object to this application for the following reasons.

    1. Nine Stories is far to excessive, extra dwellings, i dont mind if you modify the existing building for more retail, but bexley north can not accommodate more accommodation.

    2. Bexley north current infrastructure is at a maximum capacity, streets a filled with cars, Visiting family cant find parking at times.

    3. this development, will devalue not only my building but surrounding buildings as well. My building will suffer more than the surrounding building if this development proceeds, we will loose a lot more than the price of our property which includes, from the begging of the construction to the end which will result in further issues.

    4. there are far more negative aspects to this development than positive. Like increase in noise, Pollution, traffic and more

    Kind Regards

    Angelo Tzouganatos

38. Re: DA-2017/541

    I believe overall, this development will benefit Bexley North. The inclusion of new retail and outdoor eating restaurants will bring up the current town centre - much like 'The Pottery' has helped the Kingsgrove area.

    I do however have issues/queries with the following points:
    - The maximum height is substantially higher the current zoning allows it (assumed to economically justify the development). This would ensure the building would stick out greatly compared to the surrounding buildings. Keeping the heights consistent with the surrounding buildings and the current zoning requirements would help the building suit the existing area is an unobtrusive way. This would also minimise the affect to neighbouring buildings.

    - The current designed amount of car parking, whilst following the RMS specifications, does clearly not much the number of cars that would be associated with the development upon completion. The council specifications are much more realistic and the development should aim to follow them as best it can. The current number of parking spaces would suggest the existing timed council car park adjacent to the site will be used by the residents/motel users due to lack of parking in the development.

    - Branching off my point above, the development will also increase the traffic to the area. While the traffic is already pretty bad at the best of times, it needs to be accepted that no matter what development happens, the traffic is always going to increase. The council/RMS should look into an infrastructure levy or a condition of approval to the development to assist traffic flow - for example, a right hand turn lane from Bexley Road (heading towards the M5) into Slade Road etc.

    - Probably the biggest issue with the development is the close proximity to the WestConnex tunnel. The current drawings shows the basement level of the car park about a metre or so off the land acquired zone for the tunnel. The Sydney Motorway Authority should have a review and perhaps some say in this development. They will have to work closely with the structural designers to ensure foundations don't go into the acquired land (or even the tunnel itself). The last thing everybody needs is a pile or a rock anchor punching through the tunnel or even the neighbouring car park.

    Repeating myself, overall, this development will be a positive step forward for the town centre; however, the design and the thought process needs a bit of common sense (rather than just the economical return) tweaking before approval should be considered.

39. I think if they go ahead with this development the first thing should be to have a lift
    at Bexley North Station.

40. This is why I moved away from Sydney 5 years ago! I've never looked back.

41. You can’t even get out of the car park now that easily. Where are all the extra cars going to go. It’s the only open air car park for tall cars. How will anyone do their shopping there with this type of load. Sure let’s get some improvements but let’s make it possible to get in and out.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Bayside Council (Rockdale). 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