Report comment

In Thirroul NSW on “Commercial - demolition of...” at 282-298 Lawrence Hargrave Drive, Thirroul NSW 2515:

bradley verity commented

I am writing to strongly object to the above development plan.

The development of Thirroul Plaza including four (4) storey 82 units , new traffic lights at King street and changed bus and parking on Lawerence Hargrave Drive(LHD) will change life in our village in a negative way.
Over development brings a host of issues from Traffic management , water runoff, increased student number (lack of available places at local schools). This development will probably, in time affect the live music venues of Beaches and Anita's, as residents will be within meters of these venues.

The traffic survey was done in September outside our usual summer traffic flows.
LHD is already a bottleneck most summer days and is unable to be widened to cater for increased traffic flow. The traffic reports talks about a peak hour train every 4 min, ( simply not true. It uses traffic growth based on Thirroul population growth between 2011 and 2016 at 1.7%, ( this doesn't allow for the tourist growth dues to sea cliff bridge and the success of tourism Wollongong. ) The data survey used was from the 19.9.2019 and 21.9.2019 both days in which we had rain. The 19th being heavy rain.
Expected vehicle movements from the development is expected at 560 peak hour vehicle trips and 734 peak hour weekend trips. which will trigger the new lights at LHD and King street to stop the flow of traffic on LHD. I believe the Traffic Report does not adequately address the real current traffic flows and the solutions recommended serves the development but will increase the existing problems on LHD.
We also need to consider that whilst it has been over 50 years since we have experienced major fires o this strip of land, fire experts predict it will happen again, with only 1 road each way in and out of the Thirroul to Stanwell Park strip and a population double that of 1968, the problems people faced over Christmas not being able to escape fire ravaged regions and the unnecessary panic we saw in our local population (panic buying) during the current covid situation. How do you think we would handle a major fire event. If you intend to leave will you be able too or will you end up in traffic gridlock.

This report only deals with Traffic and rail noise and doesn't address noise produced by the near by entertainment venues. The noise monitoring equipment was placed in the carpark towards the king street , is this sufficient to understand the noise the 4th floor residents will encounter, especially those close to Beaches. The report talks of the site not meeting requirement for noise with windows open and needing mechanical ventilation.

Flooding and stormwater
Flood study was based of the 2015 report and not the updated 2019 report currently used by council.
council requirements include "Garage floor level to be no lower than the 100
year flood level minus 300mm or 300mm
above finished adjacent ground (whichever is
the greater)." With two(2) levels of carpark below payment level, this above rule cannot be met , even the ground floor level will be subject to 1 in 100 flooding.
It is proposed that a large stormwater holding are be built on the site along the western boundary to capture storm water and release over time. As we appear to be getting less frequent but larger rain events, hopefully this tank requirements allow for future weather events, not historic.

The writers understanding is that both the public and private local primary schools are currently exceeding capacity, an additional 82 unit which represents a 1.5% increase in house numbers between Coledale and Thirroul ( 2016 census ) wlll put further pressure on schools.
Since 2016 we have already seen medium density development as well as many subdivisions in the area. Can services really support a High density development.
One which proposes the maximum population density for the site area and the minimum environmental controls.

Development control plan
These are the key points taken from Wollongongs council plan for Thirroul.
• to support retail frontage along Lawrence Hargrave
Drive wherever possible; - 3.2 (a)
• to encourage retail activities along Lawrence
Hargrave Drive; - 3.2 (b)
• to encourage a viable village through a variety of
uses and activities; - 3.2 (c)
• to create and consolidate open spaces for the local
community; - 3.2 (d)
• to create a place that recognises cultural identity;
- 3.2 (e)
• to maintain efficient traffic flows whilst enhancing
pedestrian amenity along Lawrence Hargrave
Drive; - 3.2 (f)
• to provide adequate parking to maintain viable
retail activity; - 3.2 (g)
• to maintain a village character with a safe
pedestrian environment; - 3.2 (h)
• to create a built form that compliments the existing
urban fabric; - 3.2 (i)
• to reinforce links to surrounding areas, in particular
Thirroul Beach; - 3.2 (j) and
• to retain key views to the escarpment - 3.2 (k).

From the photomontage, the setback 3rd floor is quite visible from most LHD locations, views of the escarpment are partially blocked. The development will be negative for traffic flow and pedestrian flow, with cars heading south having to move to the gutter lane then back to the centre lane at King st. Vehicles turning right at king street are likely to block the southbound flow. King street is normally close for the Saturday of the seaside festival, with around 160 residents accessing home from King street, will this change the Village festival.

The plaza is run down, thanks to the current owners (who are the developers),so many in the community are happy for ran updated look, but does this planned development meet the DCP for Thirroul and will residents expectations of living in this Village , in fact with a high density at its doorway can we still call Thirroul a village?

I object to the size of the development as being out of character for the DCP plan, increasing traffic congestion, limiting views of the escarpment, exposing the retails shops to flooding exposing the residents to noise issues unless widows are closed. increasing all residents to bush fire via more congested escape routes.
Changing the character and use of the site significantly with no further communal green space.

sent to the planning authority

This form is for reporting comments that should be removed. Reasons can include that the comment is spam, abusive, unlawful or harassing — in other words, where people are going out of their way to cause harm. Please explain clearly why you think the comment should be removed.

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