Recent comments on applications from Kiama Municipal Council, NSW

  1. In Gerringong NSW on “Dwelling” at 21A Barclay St, Gerringong, NSW 2534:

    Belinda Tracy commented

    My name is Belinda Tracy and I live at 38 Osborne street, Gerringomg. The property in question will block my entire view if they plan to build a two story house on said land. I don't understand why I was never consulted about this. I approve the owners to build a one story dwelling on the top of the block, but it must have a flat roof, but I refuse to allow a two story dwelling on the high side. Perhaps they should build on the lower side of the block completely as the high side accommodates an old sewage pit. I would like you to seriously consider this objection as I have plans to completely renovate this house and it would impede on every plan I have for the future. I will be expecting a reply very quickly as I am appalled that I was never notified.

  2. In Gerroa NSW on “Two (2) lot torrens title...” at 21 Burke Pde, Gerroa, NSW 2534:

    ROY Schmidt commented

    DA 10.2020.66.1 - 21 BURKE PDE
    Our concerns relate to the Stormwater Concept Plan, prepared by SET Consultants.
    The plans show the stormwater pipes etc running from the top of the newly created 21 Stafford block down the easter boundary line of that block & 21 Burke Pde, to an existing pit outside 21 Burke, & across to Crooked River via an existing SWP.
    We question why all stormwater from '21 Stafford' should not be required to be diverted to Stafford St, as is generall required for similar placed developments on the southern side of Stafford St.
    The proposed positioning of the eventual new house on the new block ie high on the block, suits the flow of most stormwater to Stafford St.
    Also, the existing SWP outside 21 Burke is currently only utilised by 21 Burke. However it could be expected to be used in the future re the recently approved development at 19 Burke, plus future developments at 23 Burke (at which time 25 Burke would also link into the same SWP).

  3. In Gerringong NSW on “Medical centre” at 2/17 Noble St, Gerringong, NSW 2534:

    janelle hiddlestone commented

    I don't believe that Gerringong needs more Doctors. The streets are too narrow to cope with more traffic. I agree with Peter Hainsworth's comments.
    Janelle Hiddlestone

  4. In Gerringong NSW on “Medical centre” at 2/17 Noble St, Gerringong, NSW 2534:

    Peter Hainsworth commented

    Gerringong currently have 8 Doctors at Gerringong Medical Centre with 3 nurses plus a pathology person Gerringong Town Medical Centre . has 2 doctors plus Laverty pathology person. We also have another medical centre opening in the near future on the corner of Jupiter & Coal Street Gerringong which is going to have several specialist medical people employed. I believe we currently have more doctors here than Kiama. With Gerroa only having 19%of the residents permanently residing there plus the Gerringong population I believe we have sufficient medical persons to service our needs
    Peter Hainsworth

  5. In Gerringong NSW on “Medical centre” at 2/17 Noble St, Gerringong, NSW 2534:

    Dianne cahill commented

    Is this another doctors surgery to open in gerringong as we have 2 already and other one being built in town already near boat harbour
    Thank tou

  6. In Kiama NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 136A Shoalhaven St, Kiama, NSW 2533:

    Howard Massey commented

    It appears pretty clear that Coastwatch has thrown up the shortcoming of no "town planning" in Kiama. There will be more disasters to come if the council does not heed these (literally) concrete warnings. Don't forget the Shoebbox disasters that exist in Manning Street. The municipality badly needs a town plan to identify envelopes for particular types of developments and roads. A Town Plan is not restrictive indeed it would identify opportunities for future developments eg. where multi-story motels might be sighted. Preservation of significant views and buildings etc. The elephant in the room is the pedestrianisation of Terralong Street. We need to act to plan an alternative traffic route to allow what would be a magnificent pedestrian area of Terralong and the park.
    The Akuna development might otherwise prevent that for ever.

  7. In Kiama NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 136A Shoalhaven St, Kiama, NSW 2533:

    Beverley Arnold commented

    I live at 125 Shoalhaven Street. I haven't seen the plans for this development but I have observed the loss of amenity of properties in our street due to high levels of development. Amenity includes access to privacy and sunlight, as well as, safe conditions of living, among other things, such as noise management and safe ingress and egress of property. I was amazed to see that the townhouses adjacent to Coastwatch lost all of their outdoor privacy with balconies within metres of their back fences overlooking their only private outdoor areas. How can these people even hang their washing on the line comfortably?

    Kiama is, whether or not developers like it, a unique landscape within the whole of Australia. It is up to our Council to protect and guide our development, not to see how established guidelines, such as setbacks, can be fudged so that the maximum dwellings can be squeezed onto a plot of land.

    Just because zoning changes, our residents ought not to have the amenity of their current properties destroyed. We should be able to look to the Council to protect and enhance our place of dwelling otherwise we might just as well have an administrator who has no stake in the value of our lifestyle and simply applies rules and regulations according to State dictates.

  8. In Kiama NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 136A Shoalhaven St, Kiama, NSW 2533:

    Howard Massey commented

    It is simply not acceptable to allow a breach of the 6 meter setback. Further consideration might be given to the proposed height of the proposal talking into consideration the fall of the land and effective greater height of the development.
    A merit assessment of the actual circumstances would surely show that the development is inappropriate.

  9. In Kiama NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 136A Shoalhaven St, Kiama, NSW 2533:

    Kevin & Carol Mehl commented

    We would like to add our comments relevant to those stated above as to the high level of traffic now coming down Shoalhaven Street. The continuing developments being allowed in such close proximity to each other in Shoalhaven and Farmer Streets has added additional noise, traffic and parking issues.
    Shoalhaven Street also narrows at the point of the creek and the adjoining bus depot which is also dangerous. As Bland Street is now the main arterial road from which to access the freeway, there is a lot of heavy traffic; cars towing caravans and boats, buses and just the increasing number of vehicles.
    Consideration should be given to the road and parking conditions prior to approval this additional development.
    Drop off and pick up times at both the High School and Pre-School Centre also add further parking issues in Bland Street and it is becoming increasingly dangerous to enter and exit our driveway.

  10. In Kiama NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 136A Shoalhaven St, Kiama, NSW 2533:

    Dean Koorey commented

    Dear Sir,

    Regarding this application, I am the owner (and occupant) of 2/138 Shoalhaven Street, singled out by the developers of 136A as the property with the most to lose in the building of these units (specifically mentioned regarding impact on shading).

    While I appreciate that zoning has changed in recent years and such developments are allowed, the impact of this particular plan feels cynical. The narrow parcel of land has already created limitations on what can be built at #136A and it seems that not only has every last centimetre has been squeezed out regarding height – but it has exceeded the council guidelines regarding setbacks.

    According to Kiama's C10 rule with regards side setbacks, this height building must be set back 6m from the side boundary. Here, the developers have conceded that they have NOT adhered to this rule – a rather important factor considering a three storey property is rising directly to the north of my own. Their mitigation actions, such as including 1.7m high windows on this side are noted. But to state that my shade is only adversely affected by no more than 20% of current I feel is not good enough considering they are already in breach, exacerbated by the rising slope to give it the effect more like that of a 5-storey building than 3 – towering over mine and neighbours' properties at 138.

    I appreciate the fairly thorough arborist's report and the provision to provide fencing and substantial planting along the boundary between my property and this development. However, without knowing the height and privacy that these plants will provide, it is difficult to assess the visual damage (and subsequent loss of value) that this structure will cause my property. Currently a stand of bamboo provides adequate screening between my property and the existing single/split level house at 136A. From my upstairs balcony, I have also in the past year witnessed the block of CoastWatch closest to Shoalhaven St rising above the roofline. The developers claim that the arrival of their 3-storey building in the place of the existing home will not make much difference. First, it will clearly make a large difference visually, as well as noise from six separate units (compared to one current house) regardless of whether they can look in or not. Note that the outdoor area situated between the blocks is also just over my back fence and slightly to the east, potentially adding noise from any of the 12 units.

    With regards to the shade, the developer went to great pains to provide various shading models for 21 June (mid-winter, lowest sun). Many claims were made regarding the homes on Farmer Street, which seem absurd as they are clearly unaffected. Due to the slope and the clear breach of the 6m side setback (C10), the shading it is admitted will have the most impact on the properties at 138 – particularly, it notes, mine at #2. It claims that my back yard is already in shade for much of the day (on 21 June) and would not be affected, however I would like to see better angle modelling as to where the roof of the development would shade my unit – as the claim of 'less than 20% worse' is not what one wants to hear as a home owner. Considering the already substantial visual impact, to lose any sunlight from my yard/patio and top balcony is unacceptable – hence further modelling requested showing how high the building will actually rise and the true shade arc that will be created midwinter. It is difficult to ascertain this from the elevations and models provided.

    While this development from the street is clearly not going to be higher relative to the existing CoastWatch height, its closer proximity to our properties steepens the angle significantly. It is difficult to ascertain the actual relation to the existing CoastWatch horizon skyline and planned southern edge, but regardless of this, I feel the developers need to explore further ways to soften the southern exterior visually. I appreciate a timber feature is included in the plans, but perhaps if they cannot set back the upper floors further, then the addition of a vertical green wall/garden must be looked at if they are going to follow through with already breaching the council's side setback rules.

    In summary, to simply claim that a single property will only be 20% worse off from a development's wish to breach a major building rule (C10) might seem minor in the context of the larger project, but when you are the owner of that single property, it makes quite a difference to the value of my investment. Again, I am aware that development in Kiama is inevitable (and I made no comments regarding earlier CoastWatch or another development currently building on Farmer Street directly to the south) but in this case, further provisions should be made to be more sympathetic to existing homes (especially those built long before the change in zoning). Additional shading models will be required for me to be convinced beyond a shadow of doubt (literally!) of the claims regarding the effects of shade on my property. With June 21 2020 approaching, I would like to see markers at planned roof height placed at the closest planned point from the boundary to get a true indication. This combined with further softening (green wall) or upper floor setback measures to address the breach of the C10 6m guideline would also be appreciated. Finally, a clear guide as to the planned plantings, heights and expected growth time to reach desired screening heights is essential, considering the effective screening the current bamboo provides for just a single dwelling.

    One final error made in the DA states that Shoalhaven is a 60kph road. This is incorrect. The speed limit is 50kph and if this has any effect on the traffic management in the area, it should be amended in the document.

    Thank you
    Dean Koorey

  11. In Kiama NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 136A Shoalhaven St, Kiama, NSW 2533:

    Catherine Marie Martin commented

    Hi I do need to add 2 more issues with this proposal:
    Arborist report: This report does not seem to have included the significantly sized Jacaranda tree in my backyard. It is in excess of 10 years of age and is located on the northern boundary fence line in my backyard corner. A significant amount of its tree roots would be located where excavations are proposed and I am concerned it will be unduly effected and possibly be killed during the proposed excavations. Can the arborist included the effects on my tree which I wish to be preserved into the planning? It will be one of the few trees remaining for birdlife after all the trees are removed from #36A.
    Drainage: The drainage between my property and #36A has always been an issue and the plans do not seem to have taken this into account sufficiently. During periods of high rainfall the water from this property and #34 pools in my backyard and northern side passage. The area is constantly damp and mouldy as a result and I have had to replace wood trim and a laundry door on that side due to mould and borer attack that have been attracted to the damp conditions. I would like the engineers to have another examination of the issue as the steep slope across the properties will continue to lend itself to drainage issues and excavations will likely increase further drainage issues on my property. Our properties have retaining walls on this side which need to be taken into account in the excavation plans.
    Kind regards
    Cathy Martin

  12. In Kiama NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 136A Shoalhaven St, Kiama, NSW 2533:

    Catherine Marie Martin commented

    Hi I live next door to this development at 3/138 Shoalhaven St and as such I believe my building will be severely impacted by this development for the following reasons:
    1. Overshadowing: From the supplied drawings it can be easily seen that my building will have shadow from sunrise to at least 3pm each day and especially during winter when the sun will drop below these buildings. It is the only access to sunlight that my building presently receives. My back yard receives no sunlight all winter presently due the the existing trees at 136A and now you are going to put a 3 storey building right up against (within limits not in accordance with legislation) the northern side of my townhouse so I will now not have sunlight ALL year. My only upstairs courtyard is on this north side and I currently enjoy sunlight and warmth to my bedroom and the only bedroom which faces north. This building will remove my ONLY access to light & warmth and severely erode my home enjoyment and lifestyle.
    2. Privacy: The overshadowing and close proximity of this building (NOT within the legal requirements as noted by council meeting minutes )to my building will mean my privacy on the north side will be removed completely. One of the major reasons I purchased my townhouse 7 years ago was the sunny upstairs balcony and main bedroom on the north side. With this development I will have my privacy on this balcony & bedroom removed completely and the capital value of my home severely eroded. We have a 2 storey building complex that will be SWAMPED by this 3 storey development and the proposed future 3 storey development to the south on Farmer St as well as the current 3 storey townhouses being constructed on Farmer St to our south. The capital value of our complex will be severely eroded. At the time of purchasing my townhouse there were no proposed developments here and there was a 2 storey limit in operation in Kiama council. This aspect has not been taken into account in the application. As noted in Council minutes the bulk, scale and height of the development compounded by 'overlooking' unreasonably impacts on our buildings and erodes our enjoyment and privacy of our homes at #138.
    3. Road development: Shoalhaven St at our address is extremely steep giving limited visible access in and out of our driveway. Plus it is the main street into and out of the nearby local high school. Plus one of the main thoroughfares out of south Kiama. As such we high volumes of traffic. Current street parking makes visibility extremely dangerous and many times I have almost been run into by other vehicles who travel at high speed down our street. The cross-street, Farmer St, and school children in the vicinity makes no difference to the current speeds of local traffic. The development is only going to increase a dangerous situation particularly in view of extra street parking that is already occurring with the current development, often a caravan is parked at the top of the hill in front of #34 Shoalhaven st. This aspect has not been taken into account in the application.
    4. Noise: The current oversized development at #34 already has meant an increase in noise in the local neighborhood. There is often load music and raised voices coming from the current oversized development and the proposal will add even more with the high population density proposal on our doorstep
    5. Ecology: Removal of trees and vegetation from the rail corridor at the eastern end of the property will remove a vegetation corridor for local wildlife. There are possums, whip birds and a family of bower birds that live in this area to name just a few. The current building of 3 storey townhouses on our southern boundary has already resulted in a red belly black snake moving to our property trying to find a new area to live in. We have precious little areas of natural green space left for our native animals. The rail corridor provides one of these and the development will mean it will be removed. No consideration has been taken of this in the applications.

  13. In Kiama NSW on “Proposed increase in food...” at 10 Tingira Cr, Kiama, NSW 2533:

    cameron potter commented

    Fantastic! Better trading hours would be great. Well used cafe by local residents.

  14. In Gerroa NSW on “Dwelling, shed, swimming...” at 16 Crooked River Rd, Gerroa, NSW 2534:

    Stephen Brazier commented

    This is a small 1.2ha allotment that lies within the 40ha minimum zoning area, which is required to allow a dwelling. This zoning runs along the saddle between Gerringong and Gerroa and is primarily created to preserve the character and identity of our beautiful local landscapes.(KLEP Cl1.2(2e)). One can only assume that this condition of development was in place at the time of purchase of the property, and that the purchasers were well aware of it's existence.

    The owners of this property were granted a contravention of the 40ha zoning to construct a primary dwelling in 2016(still not constructed). This primary dwelling is approximately 5 times the size of the 3 bedroom, 1.5 bathroom secondary dwelling for which they are now seeking approval. And, then there is the 12m x 14m steel shed (DA 10.2019.234.1), all requiring an additional contravention of the 40ha zoning requirement. All these buildings are in the top one third of the allotment adjacent Crooked River Rd. The secondary dwelling is sited only 28m from the road.

    The first approval in 2016 was seen as reasonable given that the allotment previously contained an old dwelling that burnt down.

    However, this clustering of buildings in this spot will denigrate the vistas from this saddle and will be another nail in the coffin for preserving our much loved landscapes. The 40ha zoning was created for a reason!

    The owners have already been allowed one concession for the primary dwelling, surely this should be enough of a generous compromise from this community!

    If you wish to preserve the dwindling local vistas and scenic values of our locality I urge you to email Council with an objection to this over development.
    NB: comments on Planning Alerts are not considered official objections to DA's. Closing date for submissions is 24th January 2020.

    Stephen Brazier

  15. In Gerroa NSW on “Dwelling, shed, swimming...” at 16 Crooked River Rd, Gerroa, NSW 2534:

    Roger Collins commented

    I can't understand the 400k DA for all that development I agree with Roy that either this is a low cost development on a high cost block of land; or, the DA estimate is deliberately low to reduce DA fees. Council is not always alert to this ruse as it missed one local development that went in below 4m but eventually cost nearly 10m bypassing scrutiny by Councillors as well as a hefty DA fee.

  16. In Gerroa NSW on “Dwelling, shed, swimming...” at 16 Crooked River Rd, Gerroa, NSW 2534:

    Steven commented

    Most people have no objection to wood heaters, they remind us of the country and why we moved down, I wouldn't be concerned about a few greens having their usual complaining.

  17. In Gerroa NSW on “Dwelling, shed, swimming...” at 16 Crooked River Rd, Gerroa, NSW 2534:

    bernadette black commented

    Please consider the effect of wood heaters on our air quality. It really is time to discontinue this form of house heating.

  18. In Gerroa NSW on “Dwelling, shed, swimming...” at 16 Crooked River Rd, Gerroa, NSW 2534:

    Patricia Dunn commented

    Once again, please allow no more wood heaters to be installed.There are plenty of adequate, less polluting methods available for heating a home.

  19. In Gerroa NSW on “Dwelling, shed, swimming...” at 16 Crooked River Rd, Gerroa, NSW 2534:

    ROY Schmidt commented

    Based on the importance of the location, I question whether a residential house, a LARGE shed, a good size pool & a wood heater can be achieved for $400,000?? That is, will the design & quality of the properties be appropriate for the location?
    Plus I agree with the comment by Julienne Seymour re phasing out wood heaters! The morning after impact in Gerroa can be horrific!

  20. In Gerroa NSW on “Dwelling, shed, swimming...” at 16 Crooked River Rd, Gerroa, NSW 2534:

    Julieanne Seymour commented

    Please , let’s start phasing out wood heaters in our communities and keep our air clean.

  21. In Werri Beach NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 57 Werri St, Werri Beach, NSW 2534:

    bernadette black commented

    I think that wood heaters should not be allowed in built up areas. The smoke from such heaters can cause problems for neighbours. I have no problem with them on farm properties with acreage.
    Bernadette Black

  22. In Gerringong NSW on “Modified - retail building,...” at Fern St, Gerringong, NSW 2534:

    Alma commented

    I have already asked for more information about this application but have received nothing during the last two to three weeks.
    I would like the exact address please. Is this a residential house. What sort of retail building will this be and how many tourists apartments? Also is this part of the he Xlchittick lodge complex?

  23. In Gerringong NSW on “Modified - eleven (11) unit...” at 13 Noble St, Gerringong, NSW 2534:

    Dianne commented

    More units please how about the other units get finished first before approving orhers

  24. In Gerringong NSW on “Coin operated laundromat” at 4/45 Rowlins Rd, Gerringong, NSW 2534:

    Dianne commented

    We are a small town and we already have laundry mat already.

  25. In Gerringong NSW on “Modified - screened room...” at 16 Croft Pl, Gerringong, NSW 2534:

    Raewyn commented

    My apologies In my comment re the “positive for this DA” I should have inserted Unitings DA. I totally approve of the screened room

  26. In Gerringong NSW on “Torrens title subdivision...” at 143 Belinda St, Gerringong, NSW 2534:

    Ian Skeel commented

    Please read 11.1 in your report
    The plans and I assume relevant paperwork were forwarded from Brendon Leos office to Linda Davis to present to KMC meeting 21/5
    Did she actually read them or go with staff opinions
    E.g all listed under section 11.1
    Item 4 – Lighting - concern is expressed about light spill from the facility.
    Response – The proposed development seeks to replace an existing facility of the same nature. The proposed single level building will house fewer residents than the existing facility, which could reasonably be argued to result in likely less light spill impact.
    Added to this, it is emphasised that the proposed single storey development is situated in an R3 Medium Density Residential zone, on a site that could readily support a substantially larger, multi-level residential development that would likely create significantly greater impact in terms of potential light spill. Having regard to this context it is not expected that potential light spill from the proposed development would be unreasonable or unacceptable in the urban environment of Gerringong.
    Notwithstanding this, a condition of consent will be applied requiring any external lighting to be positioned, directed and shielded in such a manner as to not shine directly at neighbours and cause a nuisance should the application be approved.
    Item 5 – Concern is expressed about loss of privacy for neighbours.
    Response – As above, the proposal seeks to replace an existing aged care facility, on a lot that could readily support more intensive residential development. Such an alternative would likely have significantly greater potential privacy loss impact for neighbours than the development currently proposed.
    What are these suggestions to be considered as!!!
    It was suggested main access to the development be relocated/redirected to Greta Street, either by direct access to/from the site or via the existing Mayflower Village entry at Greta Street.
    Response – The site has direct frontage to Croft Place from where Boronia Lodge currently obtains access. The applicant proposes to maintain this existing access arrangement. Reiterating that the existing 24 bed facility is being downscaled to a 20 bed facility and given that Council’s Engineers are satisfied that the existing road network and access can support the proposed development, continued use of the access from Croft Place is considered to be acceptable in the circumstances.
    Question -How many of the Dementia patients will be driving and what is planned for the balance of 4

    In the 100 bed construction these conditions were flouted :-
    Construction regularly occurred outside approved hours during construction of the 100-bed facility

    o No dust mitigation measures were taken during construction of the 100-bed facility

    o Rubbish and building material polluted the area and clogged storm water drains as a result of the construction of the 100-bed facility
    AND KMC were never able to get adequate responses from Unitings private certifier!

  27. In Gerringong NSW on “Modified - screened room...” at 16 Croft Pl, Gerringong, NSW 2534:

    Raewyn Thomson commented

    I concur with John Balck this DA needs full approval since they are exposed to plant room noise, constant stairwell lights, tree removal and yet have to go into construction mode, where we can only hope in this case there isn’t blatant refusal to meet upto KMC conditions as there was with the 100 room build.
    Personally for me the only positive for this DA is the workers take over Greta Street as well and as it slows the the rat race through the Elambra Estate . Uniting has a Master plan as confirmed by the GM they just won’t make it public so where does that leave the residents!

  28. In Kiama NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 2 Surfleet Pl, Kiama, NSW 2533:

    Richard commented

    While I am not against having units/apartments on this lot, I would like to know why the number of dwellings in this submission have increased from 46 (in the original DA 10.2016.301.1) to now 62 units? What was councils findings of the to the original DA submission? I would like them to consider the impacts of cramming so many units into this lot because of the following:

    1. There is only one driveway entry point in and out of these units right on the downslope bend of Surfleet Place just as you exit South Kiama Drive. Increased number of cars coming in and out of this driveway as well as cars coming up hill from other residence right on the bend may increase chances of an accident. Also South Kiama Drive is 80km/h at the entry of Surfleet. Can you consider changing the limit to 50km/h on South Kiama Drive until cars are well past the Surfleet intersection.

    2. The plans do not include ANY visitor parking except for in the underground gated carpark. Surfleet Place is not wide enough to cater for street parking. Where will any visitors to these units park if they don't have access or don't use the underground carpark? Surfleet Place will be congested with cars. Why wasn't the little unused section of Marsden Street considered for parking or an extra entry point for these units?

  29. In Gerringong NSW on “Modified - screened room...” at 16 Croft Pl, Gerringong, NSW 2534:

    John Balck commented

    I think that residents along this street should be allowed free reign to do whatever they want after council endorsed the disgraceful monstrosity of a building behind them.

  30. In Gerringong NSW on “Modified - alterations to...” at 28 Fern St, Gerringong, NSW 2534:

    Alma Macpherson commented

    I would to ask if parking provisions are being made for the alterations for a new function hall reference 010 2016 00000281.004.
    Visitors to such a venue would require parking spaces and there are already a lack of them being provided resulting in a constant overflow of vehicles using the adjacent Arthur Campbell Reserve. The Arthur Campbell reserve does have a sign excluding cars and it is presently being developed as a picnic and childres play area in conjunction with Kiama council.

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