Menu

Have your say on large Bayside proposal

The Corso Brunswick Heads proposal

Developer The Kollective have another large proposal before the public, this time in Bayside, Brunswick Heads, right next door to the preschool at 94 Kingsford Drive.

Called The Corso, it’s already stirred neighbours into action, with one resident telling The Echo they are planning a meeting on Sunday to discuss the proposal.

The developer’s claim on their online FAQ that ‘The proposal is generally consistent’ with Council and NSW government planning regulations.

While Kollective promotes itself as providers of long-term affordable rental housing for moderate income earners, the company has attracted public criticism for pushing the limits of Council’s planning policies and over-development in urban areas. Additionally, weak NSW regulations around affordable rental housing allow developers sunset clauses on developments and only having to provide 30 per cent of the floor area as ‘affordable’.     

As part of new development application (DA) pre-lodgement policies, The Kollective have advertised their proposal, and will be holding a community consultation meeting on Monday September 14, between 11am and 7pm. To make an appointment, email your contact details to [email protected].

The website for the proposal is www.thecorsobrunswick.net.au.

Described as a ‘neighbourhood centre’, the plans include a 48 self-contained room boarding house, six shop top houses, co-working spaces and retail shops.

The accomodation will be limited to between 48 and 96 persons, says the website’s FAQ, and ‘will not be for sale or for short term holiday rentals’.

Instead, it will ‘provide permanent affordable housing for singles, couples and young families on moderate incomes living and working in the Byron Shire’.

The developers say rental costs for the boarding house will be $285 and $385 and for shop top houses $450 to $650. An ‘onsite manager to monitor operation of the boarding house’ will be employed, says The Kollective.

The application seeks to have a cafe and grocer operate from 7am to 7pm, daily. Developers also claim that approximately one third of the subject lot will be landscaped..

‘A Social Impact Assessment (SIA) is being undertaken which will assess any social impact of the proposal. This will be submitted to Council with the Development Application’.

‘Appointments will be available from 11am to 7pm on Monday September 14 at Brunswick Valley Community Centre, 42 South Beach Rd, Brunswick Heads NSW 2483. To make an appointment please email your contact details to: [email protected]


Support The Echo

Keeping the community together and the community voice loud and clear is what The Echo is about. More than ever we need your help to keep this voice alive and thriving in the community.

Like all businesses we are struggling to keep food on the table of all our local and hard working journalists, artists, sales, delivery and drudges who keep the news coming out to you both in the newspaper and online. If you can spare a few dollars a week – or maybe more – we would appreciate all the support you are able to give to keep the voice of independent, local journalism alive.


4 responses to “Have your say on large Bayside proposal”

  1. patricia warren says:

    The NSW Government is wasting an opportunity. The economy is in Recession with predictions of a long road to ‘recovery’. Decoded, if growth continues to be negative for 3 consecutive years it’s called Depression. The difference between ‘Recession’ and ‘Depression’ is merely a matter of definition and in no way reflects the hardship on people experiencing the economy’s impact on their daily living.
    In the Northern Rivers, the abdication of the government to provide SOCIAL HOUSING has been in evidence for decades. The current crisis has only highlighted the need for SOCIAL HOUSING as distinct from ‘AFFORDABLE ACCOMMODATION’. The distinction between the two is that SOCIAL HOUSING is pegged to income and AFFORDABLE HOUSING LEGISLATION, is not. Instead, a private developer can ‘exploit’ the weaknesses in the legislation to their own advantage.
    In context of the Bayside Development there is no joy in visioning what is proposed with a 48 room boarding house etc with 24 car spaces and room size limited to 16sqm for a single and, from memory 25 or 26sqm for a couple. Dredging up nostalgic terminology such as ‘grocer’ in the DA may create a warm and fuzzy feeling for some people, but decoded it merely means that without the ‘grocer’ and most probably ‘shops’ which will provide goods/services of an unknown type, the developer has targeted the SEPP Affordable (Rental Housing) Accommodation 2009 which requires a boarding house to be within a specified distance from such services. This is critical to the DA. The Land and Environment Court refused the proposed boarding house in Teven STreet, Brunswick Heads, in part, on this very ground. If you want to test this, then ask the developer what would happen to the DA if the ‘grocer’ and shops were removed from it??????
    Perhaps the better way forward would be for the government to purchase land in Bayside, including this site, and take on the social responsibility of building SOCIAL HOUSING as part of an infrastructure programme to stimulate the economy?

  2. Davo says:

    This proposal, if it succeeds, will be a disaster for Bayside’s commercial land that residents always believed, was for shops, like a corner store, and maybe a cafe’. Instead we are looking at a massive development of this area that has allocated 37 car spaces for two businesses, 50 single and 4 double units. I don’t understand where 48 units came from? And don’t forget about the parking for visitors and others trying to access the two shops as well. Regardless, the total numbers call for the very minimum potential of 55-63 vehicles for residents alone, the maximum likely being even higher. Where will everyone park because the developer doesn’t give a rats arse. What happened to the village shops complex? This land should never have been set up to allow this to happen in the first place. If greed wants to maximise a land footprint investment, it’s a no-brainer. Forget about the amenity of the 1,000+ residents that will be living there, you simply maximise accommodation units on a site and the community be dammed.

  3. Jon Hinfelaar says:

    We had one built across from us and it has brought with it two things (before Covid.) An overspill of cars creating a shortage of parking on the street and; obvious subletting with a lot of QLD number plates arriving with their weekend suitcases.

  4. Dave says:

    This proposal is a massive overdevelopment and completely out of character for the area. There are many problems with his proposal but for me the main issues are the lack of parking for the number of dwellings proposed and the scale of the proposed buildings. This seems like a massive overreach by the developer to maximise returns with no consideration of it’s impact on the local community.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 

Echonetdaily is made possible by the support of all of our advertisers and is brought to you by this week's sponsors, the Byron Residents' Group and Byron Community College.