I support the proposed relocation of the secondary dwelling at 5 old pacific hwy Burringbar as it increases the distance from the boundary and provides more opportunity for me to regain privacy in my backyard.
I support the Development application DA24/0573 for my neighbours at 5 Old Pacific Highway Burringbar. I feel the structure and planned useage are in keeping with a village suburban lot which has been impacted by the rail trail right behind our back fence. Tweed Council is one of few in NSW that work with owners to maximise use of their properties and in this case I fully support what’s been proposed!
They knocked down 6-meter-high trees to do this subdivision, and they were told they had to replace them with 4-meter trees, and they agreed.
They agreed and went ahead and did the new land.
Now they want to change it to 3-meter tree heights to replace it.
Don't let them change what they agreed to.
They should be told to abide by the original ruling of 4 meters.
From what I understand, whereas concerns for building approvals on residential properties may be made to Council, for a development requiring ‘subdivision ‘ of land needs to be addressed by Council to the NSW Government portal, not by individuals. Please correct me if I am mistaken but I have already emailed Council some weeks ago with my similar concerns. James Owen, Tweed Councillor is aware and addressed last Community meeting with very informative advice.
Why were only 22 residents notified when this proposal affects all the residents.
ie Traffic congestion
Lack of much needed infrastructure if this proposal goes ahead
Thank you
I could submit a book on this Concept Plan for Tweed Mall! It proposes to become a NEW Town Centre but Tweed Heads already has three: Tweed City, Tweed Shire Council buildings & Tweed Mall.
So, is this NEW Town Centre needed? This a major revamp of a RETAIL CENTRE to attract local shoppers & holiday-makers to a vulnerable, already fragile site. A strange one, where the 3 major food supermarkets are positioned side by side! Yes, the addition of a few cafes/eating places, modern children's area, indigenous cultural aspects, some pleasant trees & foliage look enticing, but the actual surroundings – Jack Evans Harbour, new children’s play areas & the boardwalk have already been improved by TSC & offer outdoors & fresh air!
The sheer extent & time schedule of the building process will cause major upheaval & change for residents not only in the immediate residential streets, but affect traffic, transport & the environment throughout Tweed Heads.
Particularly concerning is the rise of 3 tall accommodation towers & a hotel, leaving those who are in need of reasonably priced units excluded. Facts are needed: Is there a predicted rise in local population that ensures that these high rises are the most appropriate type of housing required in Tweed Shire? In this particular position?
The existing blocks of units surrounding the complex, Seascape & unit block owners & renters, locals who fish, picnic & walk along the river, access the old Tweed Hospital site etc. will be affected by noise, limited access, lack of kerbside parking (where are all the tradies to park?), for an uncertain length of time. As a result, the lifestyle of those who already live in the surrounds will be significantly impacted. Many walk to the Mall because they don’t drive & are elderly – they will need to shop elsewhere, thus affecting other nearby businesses.
And how will the existing transport be reorganised to service the public who depend on it? Shouldn't there be, due to this concept's revamp, an investigation into the necessary & relevant transport needs in Tweed Shire?
Has consideration been given to the many homeless people who choose to socialise & sleep in the area?
The lot & surrounds already have contaminated soils (as described in EIAustralia Doct), & native animals & plants at risk. More parking basements are to be constructed & there is an inference/lack of clarity that this project could be environmentally catastrophic for the existing riverside walk as well as local species of birds, reptiles & endangered animals.
The old petrol station’s demolition (1972) also raises the issue of contamination. Mention of existing fuel outlets on Wharf St & their future will also change the type of transport needed for households as well as the public.
There has been no planned local resident consultation process, but in researching this project, it was widely publicised in interstate papers & financial reviews. I trust Tweed Council will establish a broad consultative process with all ratepayers, renters & businesses, hopefully with expert speakers to enlighten us on the above & many other concerns in this massive project.
tweed council,
I live directly opposite the proposed development site at 79 Tamarind ave, and , like all the neighbourhood ,virtually lost everything in the Feb 22 floods ( my home still unliveable ) The proposed development is totally inappropriate following the devastation and damage the floods caused. The council must take into consideration the impact this elevated filled building site ,with proposed retaining walls , will have on the existing and surrounding lower ground level properties to the east ,south and 8 ground floor units to the west . This is just the first block in this proposed development ,the impact in this flood prone area could be huge if the DA is approved .
Tweed Council
I am a resident of Cabarita Lake Apartments - 77 Tamarind Ave Bogangar and like many others in Tamarind Ave and beyond - experienced losing all my possessions in the Feb 2022 Flood - and I believe the water was made worse by the mounds that have been deposited next door in preparation as part of the proposed development of 79 Tamarind Ave Bogangar.
This proposed development has already played its part in destroying many lives and livelihoods surrounding it and should this DA be further approved for further 700mm of fill - will only certainly pave the way for more destruction.
The mounds of fill that were put in the wetlands of 79 Tamarind Ave approximately 18 months ago by the developer seem to indicate the expectation that the DA will be approved, despite all previous concerns raised by residents of Tamarind Ave , Bogangar and surrounding streets.
Many current residents - if not all - have been adversely affected by flooding in the past years.
This flooding worsens each time these natural wetlands are interfered with for development.
This area in particular is home to our Bush Stone Curlew - and whilst council have taken some steps to prevent further decimation of their home - approving this DA for 79 Tamarind Ave will certainly aid in destroying it forever.
The council & government have promised to assist us with flood mitigation - passing this DA for 79 Tamarind Ave can only ensure further devastation to adjacent businesses & properties whether by water , mudslide , pollution and the like.
As the owner of the duplex property at 73 Tamarind Ave, Bogangar, we have been subject to inundation issues since development proposals have been put in place behind and now near our property , which had not occurred previously.
In 2017 an elevated 3 metre island was build behind our property and which altered the natural gravitational water flow back into the lake . Instead the water collected at the next lowest point and entered into our properties. The real estate who was in charge of the rental of these properties acted on our behalf and we asked for Council advice and assessment based on the inundation that happened. There was no response.
Again now in 2022, the floods entered not only our properties but also heavily impacted other residences in Tamarind Ave and also through other streets in our local town. Council has bought a neighbouring property to access , enlarge and in an attempt to help control storm water runoff in this street.This will not solve the problem of water drainage in flood situations. By allowing another development involving a build up of land, the flow controls on water and runoff will only add to the pressure on buildings already in place which had met all previous requirements of flood height building levels.We had been promised by government that future actions in developments would not endanger existing residential properties, but by granting permission here, we will not address the mitigation discussions which our community is trying to solve for the benefit of our whole community.
Dear Tweed Coucil,
This development should not be approved as it has serious ramifications for residents and property owners in Tamarind Ave. Council has clearly learnt no lessons as a result of the devastating floods experienced last year which saw dwellings inundated and people's lives ruined.
The fill on this site which had been brought in and dumped by the developer, even though many residents had raised their concerns with council prior to the major flooding, contributed to the flooding and loss of property and livelihoods, of residents along Tamarind Ave in the vicinity of 79 Tamarind Ave.
Now the same developer wants to bring in another 700mm of fill and create more of a flood risk and eyesore for the residents of Tamarind Ave.
The previous DA for this site had many non compliance issues associated with it eg bringing in fill to parts of the site which were not approved by council. I was also informed of poisoning and killing of protected trees and wildlife on the site by persons unknown. Another issue related to the fill currently on this site, and which will be further exebated through the addition of more fill, are the outbreaks of mosquitoes at the rear of properties affected by this development.
As part of the DA for this site, no heavy machinery is permitted to be brought on site. Therefore no compaction of this fill is permitted. Therefore no compaction reports will be done. This will lead to a greatly unstable mass of soil. Maybe council have heard of landslides? And with the proposed 700mm of new fill, the residents of Tamarind Ave may have a front row seat to this event should one occur if this development in its current form is given the go ahead by Council.
In the aftermath of the floods, the State and Federal governments indicated that they would be proposing that houses built in flood prone areas could only be built if the houses were built on stilts and not on tonnes of fill. So why is more and more fill going to be permitted on a flood prone site? This is only going to exacerbate any future flooding in Tamarind Ave.
Residents are rightfully concerned that Council appear to be more interested in the dollars of developers than the residents who make up this community.
Trevor Jardine
Would like to raise the point that once again this new dwelling is not being put on stilts to avoid flooding but on land that is being raised hence water not been able to flow and thus detrimental to other home owners. Unsure of the reasoning for this which in the long run is going to cost the rate payers and subsequently the council ti clear up. Jane Eaton
The traffic and parking issues in this precinct are already at maximum level. A number of multi story unit developments have already caused a negative impact on the safety of parents teachers and children who need to access St Joseph's Primary in this precinct. Availability of parking and traffic congestion is creating an unsafe environment. Without doubt there needs to be provision for parking of workers who work in the many schools and business .in this area. Residents in these multi story development s should have enough parking provided for them in their building . Public off street parking should be a criteria which should be addressed by the developers and council and provided for by them.
Pearl street caters to St Josephs School
Traffic and St Josephs church car parking. Pearl St is already full. We do not need more traffic and there are no car spaces to accommodate the overflow of cars from such a huge complex which does not fit in to our community Wrong building in the wrong place
More filling of sites means further worse flooding for the rest of Cabarita. Why can’t these new builds be built up on stilts so that the rest of the houses in the area don’t flood. Isn’t this just common sense????
What about the traffic in a dead end street?
Can you provide more information when available, please?
Will be an improvement on what is currently there.
My parents built 19 Enid St where these hideous towers want to be built,too many in Tweed already I say,however on a more sensitive note,the original platform to the old railway line is still in the backyard of 19 Enid St as my father filled the land with concrete as underneath is the tracks and coal as I remember him saying,it might be of interest to the historical society and myself to look at when digging an underground carpark.
This appears to be a flood zone and if so should not be permitted.
Can you please confirm that the rock wall being built won’t have further impact on South Murwillumbah residents - what does your hydrologist report state will happen in the event of flood will this worsen the volume of water heading our way. There are two parts to this application; one being rectification works and one worded new so I’m concerned about the “new” additional rock structure effect; appreciate completely if just replacing what has been lost and damaged; pls explain
I live in Seabreeze and this is desperately needed . Phone reception. Here is terrible I just hope they make it 5G capable . I’d hate to think there is an emergency here and I can’t get reception. Pointless having the ambulance station without good coverage
I’m really happy with and very much in favour of a telecommunications tower being built at this site. Pottsville and in particular Seabreeze is sorely in need of improved telecommunications services. It will not cause substantial harm to the environment or to humans.
We are not happy with proposed telecommunications tower being built 1126 Pottsville Rd, Pottsville. It is too close to Seabreeze houses and will look unsightly from the main road. There is no trees to hide the ugly tower, I’m sure there is a better spot to put it. I’m sure a lot of residents in Seabreeze won’t be happy with this plan.
This application needs to be rejected, Lalina Ave road is very very narrow, vehicles parked already block school buses, council trucks, tree loppers etc.
A major concern would be any more traffic in the area could potentially block emergency vehicles such as Ambulances, Fire Trucks etc getting through to anyone.
Residents who own boats, multiple cars, a truck, and or work trailers who have no parking available at their houses are now blocking or parking anywhere e.g other people's nature strips. These really effects me as it's happens everyday to my nature strip.
So extra vehicles in the area, wont find a park anywhere.
The road and nature strips are full of cars especially before / after work and weekends.
These days people have multiple cars etc, where are these new people going to park multiple vehicles?
and
Noise from unit cars, going up and down steep driveways, would drive neighbourhood crazy, especially house which are beside these steep driveways. (Which I'm possibly one)
I say NO to this application as simply there isn't enough room, come take a drive after work, and see how crazy it is here.
The buildings that has been constructed continuously already without any council or approvals looks an eyesore being very close to the road. Sheds and containers on the property line and possibly on the road reserve exceeds zoning requirements.
My properties building was required to be set back out of view of passing traffic and the site at 704 Byrrill creek road Byrrill Creek development site is well within any set back area previously required along this scenic road.
Byrrill Creek road is a tourist drive and a last remaining part of the great forests, that is what people come to the tweed for and enjoy, inturn providing economic stimulus to all approved businesses.
It's a stealthy development without any prior knowledge of the council.
Compliance was slow and ineffective.
The removal of vegetation along the creek within the riparian zone destroyed unique habitat and much of the construction equipment was washed down and the into and along the creek.
The area floods badly and is also within the future proposed dam site where council secured a very large parcel of land nearby at great cost to rate payers at the time for the future dam and for water supply needs of the future.
That purchase cost increased rates for all residents of tweed shire with absolutely no return and this property should have and had a stop work order placed over it.
Earthworks previously and in the future on the site will again be washed downstream further destroying the habitats of endangered and vulnerable wildlife. Additional further turpidity of the water will continue to happen.
The majority of the property goes underwater during floods and reaching high levels.
You only need to look in the creek to see past material washed away from that site.
Hence the applicants need to build up high.
Disposal of sewerage and waste water again will be another large issue as the creek is a water supply for the shire and there is absolutely no way possible dispose of this safely onsite.
Previously removal of soil and earth clay was deposited along the road edges without sediment control immediately in front of the site without any approvals from council and even dumped up the road where a pile still exists without any prevention of run off from scouring and sediment today.
This development should be removed from the environmental sensitive area.
All unapproved structures without engineered drawings and plans must be investigated and council should purchase the site for future water guarantees or take the issue to court because of applicants breaking all government requirements.