All recent comments on applications from Wingecarribee Shire Council, NSW

I am in total agreement with the comments made by Geoff Aldridge and Michael Hutcheson. We have a lot of developments in the area and more coming. We have a growing population with no increased infrastructure. Seniors in Bundanoon are well represented and Bundanoon has limited resources available. With regard to shopping, will they have to travel further afield therefore adding congestion to other roads and areas. I feel the negative impact of this development will have an ongoing consequence to the populace of this community.

I am in total agreement with comments made by Geoff Aldridge, limited medical facilities, poorly maintained roads and footpaths in part due to council negligence and already increased heavy traffic due to development has placed additional strain on existing residents in Old Wingello road and surrounding Streets. Need to ensure that the local population is balanced across all age groups and not over represented as this will ensure more diversity in the area.

This development would add higher density housing in what has been a semi rural area. There is no demonstrated need for seniors housing in this location, nor can existing facilities such as transport and medical facilities support an increased population of seniors in Bundanoon.
The development will also add extra traffic to Old Wingello Road from residents and visitors, which is already a poorly maintained and busy street.
The number of units in this application would need to be significantly reduced in order to minimize negative impact on the existing community, and surrounds.

Can you please confirm if the alterations are on one level thanks

As an adjoining property, Lot 104, Mary Street, Mittagong. My biggest concern is that there has been an access road, done by the developer, between myself and Lot 103, which was NOT on the original subdivision plans. I was totally unaware of this change. This access/carriage way is only 5.9m wide, I believe it has to be 7.5.
I do not have concerns regarding the blocks behind my property, however now I could potentially have a road next to my front door and vehicles driving down beside my home.
I would like to know how 6 blocks will fit on this parcel of land, considering there is an Easement for Drainage of Sewerage which goes through these blocks.
I hope you can understand my concerns.
Regards
Robyn Thomas

Is there more detailed information available for where exactly these 6 lots are proposed? Will the native flora and fauna be affected? We have native wild Kangaroos, frogs, snakes, wombats and birds on this proposed development site and beautiful tall gum trees. I would hate to see any of those affected due to development. Thank you for allowing me to provide my comments.

I do not think this home should be demolished as it is in keeping with other homes in Old Bowral. Demolishing homes increases the environmental footprint of the block, creates noise destruction and exposes residents to the risk of toxins such as asbestos, DDT and lead from old paint. Please reconsider approving this and ask that the residents extent the home in keeping with what is already there as the people at Old Meadows have done.

To The Council
My comment to this DA sub-Division is still the same as that submitted for the previous application.
Nothing has changed other than no longer being dual occupancy.
My previous complaint still stands
Harry Shannon

The developer of this construction site has erected(27/5) a perimeter security fence along the Highlander St. boundary which is way outside the actual site boundary, restricting vehicle movement and which encloses the Highlander St. vegetation corridor. This verge vegetation was to be excluded from any part of the Development as a result of much opposition from local residents at the time of the original application in Jan2019.
This boundary fence should be moved back onto the actual site (21 Ferguson Cres) boundary.

I believe this property is zoned R2

I thought that Albert Street was a 2a zoned street which means no town houses or subdivisions etc, it is located in Old Bowral the original township, which should remain loyal to that concept and to 2a zoning.

Has the number of car parking spaces been increased with the change from boarding house to serviced apartments?
This development is on the perimeter of a major intersection which already has two (2) multi-dwellings exiting onto the roundabout with yet another DA lodged for a townhouse/unit of 10 residences to be built on the last remaining block of land.
This seems to be very poor planning. Surely the RMS must have guidelines that need to be complied with in respect of vehicle entrances onto or adjacent to major intersections.

The markets at the SHAC are a great thing for Robertson. They attract visitors to town and other local businesses benefit from it. When they are on there is always activity and vibrancy in town.
It’s important to provide opportunities for artists and makers to sell their work so that they can generate income and continue to create.

I have been a resident of Aitken rd for approximately 3 years. I built a new home. At the time the decision to purchase and live on Aitken Rd was due to its "R2: Medium density zoning. To my way of thinking I took that to mean that "we" would not have an overcrowded street. A feature of Aitken Rd is that at school drop off and pick up it is a very busy road. The school was there before we were and that is an acceptable thing.

So if the care facility is approved (which I believe it shouldn't be.) That will amount to a constant traffic flow all day and on weekends too.

It perplexes me that an aged care facility can even get to the point of putting in a proposal when the R2 zoning matrix highlights what is deemed acceptable in that zoning and what isn't. A care facility and multiple buildings not being part of that matrix to name a few.

So not only is this being considered, at what time was or is the zoning for the street changed.

The highlands has an abundance of Older residence care options already. When and where will the council say enough already.

Many may see it as just the residence if Aitken Rd having a whinge. More care facilities will have an impact on an already stretched public hospital, and other medical services as well.

Bowral is losing its charm with every new development. Why is it that urbanization is a priority. When we allow big developments like this to rule our street scape shame on us. Bowral will be just another suburb.

Have additional services that are needed for a nursing home been considered such as support services, biomedical waste collection, garbage collections,ambulance sirens, fire alarms. All these services require access on a regular basis and are large noisy vehicles. I have worked in Aged Care for many years and can confirm these are busy places and do not belong in residential streets.Council needs to review their planning permission guidelines. Have a look at Martha Street Bowral if you want to see the results of poor planning, such a shame.

The WSC seems intent on destroying the history and character of the Southern Highlands villages, but Bowral in particular, with the bizarre proposals to "ease" major problems they continue to create by approving innapropriate developments in as many places as possible.
The latest industrial scale project has a seemingly humane intent, but a ludicrous location. The basic facilities (water, etc) seem to be barely coping with the current local population, but they are hell bent on tripling the amount of residents in this street. We're lucky to have one tap working normally, but a second tap open at the same time and neither work adequately, and we are used to tank water.
This development could easily have gone into one of the locations by Bowral golf course, instead of the multiple medium density units that have been installed in the last couple of years, with no doubt many more to come, or even the huge empty space at the Old South Road and Ascot intersection. Maybe that's too close to the recently completed care facility behind Stephen's Park though. Another option could be the current council chambers. An excellent location for something like this and that building has no historical or cultural value, better road and rail connections, far less school traffic, and maybe it will slow down the demolition of the rest of the highlands.
The council running with this proposal is in line with their poor grasp of planning and bizarre “solutions” trying to mask problems they’ve caused, like the redevelopment of Station Street that will make traffic flow far worse than it currently is and will no doubt cause stationary cues of traffic from Moss Vale to Mittagong. Not forgetting of course that Bowral is a “destination” location (that is rapidly ceasing to exist) and the current traffic seems to to suggest that people want to drive through or around.
The location of this new development secretly agreed to and presented as a fait accompli telegraphs their intentions to overturn all so called residential areas by decreasing their value to average people (i.e. - not developers) and increase the profits to their friends.
We began to regret our move to Bowral only two months after moving here when the Council facilitated the removal of huge established eucalypts in the street outside the High school and pretended it was all down to the school, while the school claimed it was nothing to do with them. Just to prove the council has a sense of humour, soon after this, they distributed information telling us about street trees and how they add value to residential areas, etc.

I am a resident of Aitken rd.Bowral and strongly object ti the DA proposal 19/0574 for a residential care home of this size .we are NOT an industrisl zone and a massive 2 to 3 level monstrosity in and already overburded traffic nightmare that is Aitken rd.Do you want to ruin the charm of "old Bowral with this overdevelopment.please rethink this blatant disregard for the aesthetics of our lovely town.

As I and others have moved into the Parkland Estate based on neighbouring lot sizes and the streetscape of the setback of houses we believe that the development application Ref:18/0102 & 18/0102.01 does not meet these criteria for the Parkland Estate and also does not meet the minimum lot size for subdivision of 2000 sqm.
The application talks about the suitability of the site for the development but bases it findings on lot size standards of 1500 sqm and this does not reflect the difference for a 2000 sqm lot and so does not comply in areas of streetscape, setbacks from roads, roof line from Bromhall Road, separation between the two dwellings and other areas.
I believe that consultation with all homeowners in the Parkland Estate and the wider community of Bundanoon should be undertaken before the major step consideration of reducing the minimum lot size to below 2000 sqm is granted as this affects the village of Bundanoon and its residents.

Peter Molesworth
Hi i would like to put my submission to the elected council members.
As a resident of the Parklands Estate i am very concerned that we have an investor who is just trying to maximise their profit of their property with no interest in keeping the area as Beautiful and open with minimum lot sizes of 2000 square metres. I would like to appeal to the elected council members to please consider to keep this area as it is now.
We have may plots of land around Bundanoon that this person can buy which would suit them better. The worst thing that can happen to them is sell, take their money to a different area and let some other willing person to purchase the property and enjoy their land in Parkland Estate.

Already established Parklands Estate consists of block sizes from 2000sqm to 4000sqm. Reducing any blocks within this Estate is not keeping with the low density area it was and is intended to be. The two new lots will be below the minimum lot size for this locality and therefore not keeping with the Estate as it is intended to be.

What is the modification to the section 96 da?