235 Rothery Street Corrimal NSW 2518

I strongly support this subdivision. I have been a guest at this house over the years, the lot is excessively large and is not appropriate for a city. The area needs more housing, land values continue to rise due to scarce developable land and the failure of our council planning to boost its supply, this proposal is a great supply response and we need a lot more of it to improve affordability. Rothery st is not too bad for traffic compared to railway st, this is a great place for it being so close to bellambi station and Corrimal shops. The developer fees should go towards new infrastructure - a car bridge going south at Louis st or to Hansen st (both already have pedestrian bridges) so residents can chose between railway st and rothery for their commute

I am strongly against the proposed Development.

We have issue with the property in the following areas.
1) Type of building
2) Parking
3) Manoeuvrability on site
4) Waste bins
5) Possible balcony allowances
6) Structural damage through construction
7) Storage Facilities
8) Trees
9) Sewage main

1) Type of Building:
In the applications ‘Statement of Environmental Effects’ in the ‘Comments’ section at the end of the ‘Desired Future Character’ section the applicate would have you believe that the application fits in with the local existing building and character.
We have renovated cottages, two storey town houses, duplexes and some quite stately homes in the immediate street. We do not have 10 block of units with under ground parking. We find the statement false. We do not have small spaced accommodation/rooms crammed into a block, more suited to medium density living, closer to the centre of Corrimal or even Wollongong. We have homes that are liveable and fit for purpose.
Please see the examples below of housing in sight of the proposed development.

239 Rothery Street

204 Rothery Street

229-233 Rothery Street

210 Rothery Street

214 Rothery Street

216 Rothery Street

237 Rothery Street
Looking at the proposed plans, they have small all in one living spaces downstairs, with 3 x 3 meter bedrooms upstairs. Think about that for a minute. Your bedroom is the same size as a market 3 x 3 gazebo. This is not in the character of the surrounding building/homes as the applicant would have you think.
Late last year I put in a GIPA request with council in regards to the pre approval meeting that was held between the developer and council for the development of 235 Rothery St. In this meeting council responded to the layout of the proposal in its then form, under the header;
‘Topic 5.13 Additional Control for Multi Dwelling Housing-Dwelling Mix and Layout’ That the layout need to; ‘Provide a mix of dwelling sizes and layouts within the larger multi-dwelling developments having ten (10)or more dwellings. This could include both a variation in the number of bedrooms and gross floor areas of the apartments, variety in the internal design or incorporate one- two- or three bedroom dwellings to accommodate various residents requirements.
There is no variety in the size or dwelling composition. Revised plans are to be provided with any forthcoming application that denotes a mix of dwelling sizes and layouts.’
Looking at the plans as they have been proposed, this is not the case and all of the units except one are all the same in mirror image form. This should not be enough to meet councils request. There is no variation in bedroom numbers or layouts. There is no variation in gross floor areas.
This proposed development could easily house between 30 to 40 people. On one block that would normally house 6 in its current form, and in a practical developed form roughly 20 people. We are not expecting no development on this site. We agree that we need more housing. This development however in its current form is over crowding. Its far too many units, with very little space, little storage space and not enough parking. We want to see development more in keeping with the area that does not inhibit the quality of life of the area.
In the last two years, 216 Rothery Street was developed into a three duplex on a land size of approximately 750 sqm. Half the size of 235 Rothery Street. Three residences of good sized living areas, more in keeping with our street and not over crowding. We accept development of 235 Rothery Street is going to occur. But this proposed development it too big for the area and does not fit in. As well as having many negative effects as to the day to day lifestyle of the street.
With the R2 Low density Zoning that we are in, we are unclear as to how this suits this proposed development. You will say it meets the requirements of the code. But how is it low density and how does it fit with the character of the street? It’s a big block of tinny units with not enough consideration to the ramification of the residents on a daily basis, which we will expand on below.

2) Parking:
This we’re sure is a normal gripe in all of the responses to building applications. There is not enough parking on site. This is a common problem, and Council needs to amend the regulations to stop it occurring. Our streets are becoming increasingly filled with cars parked on them making it hard to see getting out of driveways or even park at the front of your own home if you wanted too. This proposal will do nothing to help the situation.
Safety must be mentioned in this case when it comes to parking on the street. We already have issue seeing out of our driveway with large cars parked on the street. We have had many close calls getting out, and that is driving out forwards, not reversing out.
Sadly, 18 months ago, a young man lost his life out the front of our home here on Rothery Street. He lost control of his car heading west over the railway bridge and ran into parked cars brining him to a dead halt. We and our two teenage children were the first on scene trying to assist the young man who. If the street was not full of cars he might have had a chance to bring the car under control, or at least avoid such an impact that caused his death.
How it is possible to think that two bedroom units, will be serviced properly by one parking lot each? It is not out of the question to perceive that each unit could have two, or even three cars per unit. Leaving between ten to twenty cars looking for parking on the street. Allowing conservatively 7 meters per car to be able to park on the street, that would cover between 70 to 140 meters of street frontage being taken up by this one block of units with only 25 meters of street frontage.
Estimating on average the street frontages of the immediate area are 20 meters, that would mean there would be no parking in the street for between three and seven houses either side of the units. So, you can’t even park out the front of your own home, because your neighbour three houses down, has parked there because there is nowhere else to park.
This will be further exacerbated every week on bin night, when you lose a further two to three parking spaces on the street for access to bins.
Once again, not in keeping with the character of the street.
Another aspect to heavy amounts of parking on the street that will effect us in another way that most people would not think about. Caravan parking. We keep our dual axle caravan off the street, parked on our property. This keeps it safe, reduces permanent street parking which a lot of caravaners are in trouble for these days. As well as the factor of security, having our van off the street out of sight is less of a neon sign that our home is unoccupied when we are travelling in our caravan.
To reverse our van into the driveway which is the only possible way to do so, we need to use the full street width to make it possible to line up to our driveway. If the street is full of parked cars constantly, then we don’t believe we will be able to reverse it in at all. Leaving us in a position of either paying to park our caravan at a storage facility or leave it to risk of damage on the street. All of which when we have purchased a house with the capability to avoid these issues. But with this proposal, if approved, leaves us hamstrung to either pay money for storage or risk damage on the street and reduced security for our home, through no fault of our own.
Not to mention the inconvenience of when we want to pack our caravan to use, it is not here to do so and we have to either retrieve it which leaves us with the same issue of parking. Or do multiple runs to the storage facility. You may think this is trivial. But we purposely purchased this home at a cost because it met our needs and lifestyle. Now with this proposed development that is all at risk.
3) Maneuverability on site:
We did observe a second issue with the lack of parking, in the underground car park. There is one space allocated per unit. Two visitors and space for motor bikes and bicycles. But there is no dedicated turning space. Using the applications ‘Traffic Management Plan’ it shows how the cars will be able to manoeuvre in and out of their allowed parking. It is clear in this document that without the allowance of a dedicated turning space, turning your car around in the parking area will be impossible.
So, what is to happen when all the spaces are full including the visitor parking? How will someone be able to turn around or reverse up the very tight driveway with its two 90 degree turns? How will they get their car out when they drive down to see if there is a park and there is none available? There needs to be a dedicated turning bay in the carpark for safety to avoid accidents getting in and out of the driveway let alone practicality.
4) Waste Bins:
As per Council regulations, the space for bins on the street frontage must not take up any more than 50% of the street frontage. Taking a conservative measurement of our three bins, at 1.6 meters all lined up next to each other, would mean that the proposed development would have 16 meters of bins on the street frontage. The frontage of 235 Rothery Street is 25 meters. Well over the 50% maximum. It does meet the regulation. Further supporting the fact that this proposal is too big. Not even the bins have enough space.
This also comes back to the parking as mentioned above, but in a different concern. Where are we supposed to put our bins for collection when all our own street frontage has been taken up by residence cars from the proposed development? We are directly adjacent to the proposed development, and therefore this WILL be our problem weekly. Residences will be parking further away from the unit block causing more bin location/placement issues affecting more people negatively.
5) Possible Balcony Allowances:
We have concerns that the design of the 1st floor looks suspiciously like it will be a balcony. Or at the very least make it easily possible to install or modify to do so. It looks very much like a handrail on the edge of the ground floor alfresco area roofing.
Can we get confirmation that this is not the case? And that Council will not allow this to be a modification in the future?
If this was the case, and it be allowed, then our property would have 10 balconies looking into our yard, taking any privacy away from our pool and home. There is a big difference in a neighbour looking out the window to see the type of day they are walking into than sitting on a balcony for long periods of time.

6) Structural Damage Through Construction:
We are concerned about the excavation works in the proposal that it will damage our property. We have a concrete driveway directly to the west of the proposed excavation and have concerns for both it and the concrete slab that our home is constructed on at the rear.
What reassurance do we have, or course of retort do we have, if there is damage? Given that we have recently cosmetically renovated the floors and internals of our home. This is of major concern to us.

7) Storage Facilities:
I would like to draw your attention to a section of the ‘Statement of Environmental Effects’. Chapter B1 Residential Development, DCP Clause 4.11 Storage Facilities.
In this section of the proposal has stated there is ‘adequate’ storage facilities in the living areas with built in robes etc, including ‘The double garage also provides additional storage for bulky items.’
That is false. It’s a single garage, with the laundry facility behind it and a stair case to the unit above. This makes us wonder what the car space will be used for? Car parking? or storage, due to the lack of bulky item storage.
8) Trees:
As per the proposal in the ‘Landscape Planting Schedule’ there is some 239 plants that are to be planted as part of the development which we do applaud. Greening the space and providing some privacy we welcome. But how does Council ensure that all will be planted? Will the proposal, if approved, get final approval ready for sale, if the landscapes are not completed as per the proposal? What happens if the developer claims failing funds due to unforeseen site circumstances and can’t fund the greening of the site? Thus, potentially leaving us with a more barren landscape and less privacy.
9) My understanding is that there is a Sewerage main that runs under this property. Will that not interfere with the proposed underground carpark?
In conclusion, we are not opposed to a development of this site, we are appreciative of the design in some respects, such as the 239 plants going in for privacy and greening the block. The fact that there are no balconies overlooking our yard/pool. We agree we need more housing and that buildings like duplexes are going to be more common in Greater Wollongong. It’s the facts that this proposal is far too big for the area. It’s not doubling or even tripling the accommodation. It’s 7 times what’s there currently. It has a potentially unsafe and inadequate carpark. Too many bins for the site and is a block of units surrounded by the current low density housing, that fits the area.
It may meet council requirements in some respects. But it does not fit in with the character of the existing housing regardless of how many times the proposal says it does. It will, if approved in its current form, negatively encroach on the quality of life and day to day living in our street. It will make life harder, to get in and out all our driveways, impede reversing into our driveways, increased traffic on the street. It will make finding parking for guests impossible. Reversing a caravan like we do, to keep it off the street, will be almost impossible. Putting the bins out will be fighting for space. Simple things that council forms don’t think or care about.
‘This is not Smiths Hill. This is Corrimal. Not all of Corrimal, not all of Greater Wollongong needs to look like the inner suburbs of Wollongong. Just because it looks like it fits the cookie cutter doesn’t mean it should go ahead. We do need more housing. We do need to have more people living in smaller blocks. But how small does it really need to be? How many do you really fit in a proposal and fit in with the surrounding area? 10 units, 30 to 40 people living on one housing block is far too many for our area.
Thank you for your time and expected consideration of our concerns. We look forward to Councils response.
Regards
Ian and Jayne Ellis