Oh here we go - DA Tracker was only citing 6 Berith Street but on Council's feed and website today, it is now 6-8 Berith Street for 7 townhouses! Seven units seems like an awful lot on two blocks including removing a reasonably new granny flat on the rear lane.
1. This block has been approved (5th April) for 3 strata units not 7 (by DA Tracker) but 5 car spaces.
2. Sadly, a reasonably new granny flat on the rear lane is being demolished. Will it be lifted off the slab and reallocated/recycled? Surely it has value? Otherwise it seems like a terrible waste.
3. There are no documents on Council's website for CC382/2025 (not DA175/2025?). Can we see them please, especially the landscaping design?
4. The photo is incorrect on DA Tracker. I had to look up Google Maps to see the actual lot.
Seven town houses sounds a lot. This property appears to have rear lane access.
Ettalong Umina Woy Woy are becoming a mini Gold Coast. I think we have come a long way since the 1960,70,80s. We have become a fast growing community. We are so lucky to have such a beautiful beach community on the Central Coast. We are becoming a younger family community mixing with the older community. It's a great area to live.
We need ore town houses and units to help house the growing community.
Sadly it's called progress and it's a good thing.
I think if seven Town houses can be built at this property it will be able to house several families.
We have memories of the old times.
It is time for the area to grow to bring new memories.
I am in favour of this application
Brad
7? 7 Townhouses?! I have no words
Proposed development seems excessive in size and adversely impacts the adjoining properties. Bottom section gutter and eaves touch the boundary of 1A Agate Ave and are approx. 150mm from 3 Agate Ave border. Minimum setback should be at least 500mm from property boundary. This needs to be readjusted to comply with council regulations.
Storm water- Agate Ave has well known poor street drainage with large pools of water forming regularly after heavy rain. The additional rainwater collected from this large house and pool will exacerbate this problem, as will the loss of Melaleucas which assist with drainage of the swampy soil.
Pool- is an extra water collector, transferring water from backyard to front council strip when overflowing. What will be the impact of the pool chemicals on the nature strip? Also the pool will add further unwanted background noise pollution to the neighbours with the pump running.
Agate Ave has had a history of flooding which on numerous occasions have been brought to the attention of council . Residents have at their own cost made alterations to the street scape to access their houses when heavy rain fall occurs . These trees play a critical role in the hydrological regime of this coastal area The proposed removal of so many trees will potentially increase flooding .
Historically the outlet from the lagoon was a creek running through that block and other blocks on Agate Avenue into Middle Creek. It was a natural waterway. This is probably why Agate Avenue has water on a number of blocks after heavy rain. The lagoon outlet was diverted later to go under Coral Cresc to the ocean. Melaleucas soak up the water and shouldn't be removed to prevent flooding. The area surrounding the lagoon is an EEC Endangered Ecological Community which includes the Melaleucas and Casuarinas.
Ann Parsons
~ The West back bedroom & balcony upstairs overlooking the pool side; needs swapped to the East back side of the back of the house.
The East slanted roof with skylights; instead, moved to the West side of the back of the house.
Then as next door neighbours (3 Agate Av), will not have our back garden & porch overlooked by 1 Agate Av; nor our North East sunlight & solar panels knocked out. Otherwise being a single story house, we will have NO SUNLIGHT into our living areas; due to the pushed out 2nd storey/bedroom/balcony blocking our North East sunlight.
~ The front West upstairs balcony is open on the West side; overlooking our private courtyard at the front of our house losing our privacy.
We would like the West side of the balcony to have a wall; instead of being open, so we're not overlooked.
~ The pool at the back of the house will lead to flooding issues; since they will be removing all the Maleleuca trees at the back which suck up excess water. Being in a flood zone area & having a pool there is irresponsible; to all the adjoining neighbours, due to increased flooding risk.
Also the pool pump will be to noisy for us sitting on our back porch as it'll be next to our side of the fence.
~ The West verge at the front of the driveway of the house has plans for a tree next to our stone courtyard wall. That is too close to our wall and should not be planted there. It will uproot our wall over time and block out any much needed sunlight for our house & solar panels; since the house being two storey, and going back so far; is already robbing us of our much need North East sunlight.
We personally think this house has not had the impact of sunlight, flooding, privacy for 3 Agate Av considered.
We are currently building a one storey house next door; taking into consideration the neighbours on both sides of us; so they have sunlight & privacy. We also have kept as many Malelcula trees as possible to avoid flooding. We find it inconsiderate that council, their architect and the current neighbours have not thought any of this out; to do a smaller design that takes those considerations into account.
Therefore we do not approve of any of this current house design as is.
Go back to the drawing board and think of a smaller, better design.
I am 95 years old, living at pretty beach. When i visit throughout the community I am often out of mobile touch and this is dangerous.
This proposed phone tower is apparently being opposed in main by a small group. It is on public land, next to a large public water tank, so the location after exhaustive research has been identified as a sound solution.
I ask for a safer communication
Alec Anderson
I couldn't see any plans for a septic/AWTS system, but could see that there's a WC in the plans.
Please advise.
I strongly object to the proposed subdivision of this semi-rural lot into residential lots. This development raises serious concerns regarding its environmental and infrastructural impacts.
Firstly, the location of this proposed subdivision, sloping towards fragile lake ecosystems, presents a significant risk of exacerbating flooding and environmental degradation. The surrounding ecosystems, already vulnerable, stand to be severely impacted by increased stormwater runoff, particularly given the area's proximity to Tuggerah Lake. The development could further strain the delicate balance of the lake’s ecosystems, especially during high lake levels, king tides, and periods of intense rainfall.
The infrastructure in this area is already inadequate to support a substantial increase in population. The two-lane roads, railway crossings, and intersections without traffic signals create significant congestion, particularly during peak traffic times and weekends when the area sees additional pressure from sport events. The introduction of new residences will exacerbate these traffic bottlenecks, leading to potential safety hazards and increased travel times for residents and visitors alike.
Wyong hospital is already understaffed and underfunded
What impact will there be to already appallingly long wait times in the emergency department and the rest of the Wyong hospital system (for example, obstetrics is no longer offered at Wyong hospital).
The proposed development threatens the environmental integrity of the area and will place considerable strain on already overstretched infrastructure. It is essential that any development in this region considers the long-term sustainability of both the environment and the community. I wish to see a report investigating each of these concerns and the concerns of other community members.
Good morning
I live on Tuggerawong Road and have seen the flooding to areas surrounding Jensen and Tuggerawong Roads on numerous occasions. The building of this development is likely to increase the water level in a flood and put not only mine but so many more properties at flood risk. The water level comes up from not only the lake but the swamp along Jensens road. The last flood we were more affected by the storm water run off to the west than the lake to the East. Due to the location on Jensen Rd this development is likely to and will, cause flooding issues for numerous suburbs along the lake and river. It’s time council stopped repeating their mistakes and consider both the environmental impact and the residents.
Thank you.
As a resident of lower Tacoma by the river I am concerned about the likely impact of disrupting what little natural land drainage this land provides by development. There is already large amount of water that impacts the lower lying properties when it rains and development will further increase the flow of water.
The current drains into the lake from the properties are damaged (collapsed) and council advise they do not have funds to repair. For development to occur there needs to be significant repair and major consideration to developing drainage into a lake system that is already overwhelmed. With the current information provided I oppose this development
I live along Tuggerawong Road and over the past 4 years have been affected by flooding on numerous occasions. I have now been notified by my insurer that they will no longer cover flooding. The cost of insurance cover, with the few insurance companies that will cover me is close to a third of my yearly income. As I have only had water surrounding my house and not in it, this is a risk I have decided I need to take. The building of this development is likely to increase the water level in a flood and put not only mine but so many more properties at flood risk. The water level comes up from not only the lake but the swamp along Jensens road. The last flood we were more effected by the storm water run off to the west than the lake to the East. Due to the location on Jensens Rd this development is likely to can cause flooding issues for numerous suburbs along the lake and river. It’s time council stopped repeating their mistakes and consider both the environmental impact and the residents.
Hi, the 46 lot subdivision is an unconscionable development. It would be built on sloping land containing hard structures like concrete, roofs, roads without infiltration but funnelling water down hill at velocity even in low consistent rainfalls, or during short intense rainfall events to inundate hundreds of homes. And then where does it go? As the lake is higher than sea level, add king tides, or even significant water input from all other upper areas. It is blocked. Opening The Entrance channel isn’t going to help and it rarely does. The frequency and intensity of rain events is increasing, as is regular flooding which I’ve observed over 35 years that I’ve lived here. 40 Jensen isn’t suitable for any hard structures deflecting rainfall. The development fringes huge soaks, evident by floodplain vegetation. The water table isn’t that far from the surface even in higher areas as one doesn’t need to dig far to see it. Black mould in homes is the common problem through the community now. The water tables will be higher and stay longer than ever for longer periods, then stagnation increases mozzie activity and therefore health risks. The lake is higher than sea level and therefore water is unable to disperse evenly or quickly, this already happens now! What infrastructure is going to help the community from flooding, absolutely nothing. Council can’t put in infrastructure to help dissipate the water. That would have already if it was a solution. Already our community pays hefty insurances, if they can. Council has mapped these low lying areas as sea level rise locations but until then hundreds of houses will be consistently inundated when it rains. This development will not improve our community of Tacoma, Tuggerawong, Wyongah, Wyong or Rocky Point. Plus there’s a potential to land lock those who live on Tacoma south for longer periods than ever before. I wonder why these planning ideas come about, we’ll just plonk it here because some private land owner is selling acres…and we’ve rezoned it. This isn’t about NIMBY, it’s about the flooding that already happens. This type of development and any others of this magnitude isn’t suitable here. That’s common sense from a community of non planning people with gained expertise of living here. Planners shouldn't take advantage of community that may think that local, state and federal gov can fix the flooding situation either.
I would like to be made aware of what infrastructure solution your engineers have in store to combat the already ongoing problem of flooding causing property damage to most in the area as the there hasn't been a solution yet. I believe that allowing this to go ahead would further if not make worse the situation we have had in recent years of flooding. It is worrying as insurance companies are quite strict on flood prone land and this will only get worse.
What will council do to help with the flood issues, the already damaged roads causing risk to anyone driving along, the lack of much needed services in the area. We don't even have a birthing unit in Wyong hospital anymore. The forever growing population that seems too have nothing too support it. Wait times in ED, drs appointments, transportation problems the list is endless. I would like a documented response on how you pose to fix all these issues.
Hello, I am a long time resident living In Braithwaite Rd Tacoma (40 years). I am extremely concerned about the rezoning of this land parcel and the potential effects it can/ will have on our properties in heavy rainfall events.
Can you please contact me ASAP or refer me to the appropriate engineers who are looking after the flood/storm water plan for this new development .
Kind regards
Bradley Browning
Is this inside the school grounds not squeezed in beside a Woolworths a truck bay I hope
That car yard is fairly new can’t believe they’re going to demolish existing buildings for another car yard
So wasteful
Agree with BL, traffic is already an issue with a school and shops next to each other. There is no green space in the heat sink area, sort it out we need places with trees for shade and cool. The park on Johns road should be called melanoma park and wearing oodles of sunscreen just makes you even hotter!. If gums are not preferred, sadly..then put in tuckeroos that spread and don’t drop limbs. The same needs to be happening at both developments at wadalba. Make it an area for community to enjoy, a pool with trees, bbqs, duckies. No more clearing land for housing either. You’ve stuffed up the land and created another heat sink at the freeway access..who in their right mind wants to live in hell…literally it’ll be that hot! Buy land from private owners that have already been cleared and put in less housing with more trees, green it up and allow these smaller villages to have solar, water recycling green spaces that link vegetation corridors. It’s time planning grew up and didn’t force these sorts of developments on community. Don’t let Eaton have a say his numerous timber yards and hardware stores are a conflict of interest on the coast.
Because the traffic isn’t horrendous enough here ?
Now there’s also the new daycare on Johns rd which will cause more gridlock (by the way I’ve never had an alert for their planning so is it even council approved?)
Whatever happened to making sure the infrastructure could handle more residents and traffic before adding more ?
This beautiful bit of old Woy Woy history should not be demolished. It's not acceptable for owners to leave buildings neglected for decades without proper maintenance and attention like so many on the peninsula. This should not be used as an excuse to demolish. Owners must be held accountable for neglecting this building and must repair it.
My two points for this submission are the pool & positioning of the house.
Due to the beachfront getting regularly wiped out by the sea in storms; a pool would only cause more erosion to the delicate shifting sands. There is already a local pool and the sea to swim in. I think the pool should be scrapped to keep the block of land stable in storms.
Secondly I think the house should sit as far back on the block as possible due to the ongoing beach erosion. It is only a matter of time before the front part of the block disappears; and the further back the house sits gives it longevity.
To whom it may concern,
We reside at 14 Bumble Hill Rd and share a boundary with 18 Bumble Hill Rd. We have noticed that a recent survey plan for DA/1119/2024 indicates that the highlighted property (Lot 1) includes the driveway. However, both past and recent surveys confirm that this driveway is part of our property, with us having the obligation to grant a right of carriageway. While we do provide this right of carriageway, we are concerned that the new owners, due to the way the property is highlighted, might mistakenly believe the driveway belongs to them. We would appreciate it if the current owner of Lot 1 could be reminded of this.
Kind regards,
Dr. Jakob Timmer and Dr. Anna-Karina Hermkens
I am extremely concerned that this property contains asbestos.i am adjacent to this property. I would request confirmation about this matter