Battle of Bellevue Road takes another twist

Wollongong City Council has responded to community concerns over controversial plans for the redevelopment of a corner block on busy Bellevue Road in Figtree.

Neighbours cried foul over “shifting goalposts” during the development application process as the developer made late changes. They asked council for an extension of time to give them time to respond in full.

The home’s owner lodged a DA with council last year, seeking to demolish the original building at 79 Bellevue Road, with plans to subdivide into two lots to create four new dwellings where one exists.

As reported in The Illawarra Flame in November 2025, former Wollongong councillor Vicki Curran sought a stop-work order on the demolition of the 1960s home, claiming it was riddled with asbestos, putting nearby residents at risk.

Vicki and nearby residents took their concerns to the latest meeting of Neighbourhood Forum 5 (NF5) last week, claiming the plans were an overdevelopment of the site.

“Safety is the big thing,” Vicki told NF5. “The setbacks don’t comply and there’s a massive line-of-sight issue. We’ve seen two very serious accidents on Bellevue Road.”

Residents fear if the DA is approved in its current form, more motor vehicle crashes are inevitable.

With submissions closing at midnight last Wednesday, Vicki expressed her concern about late changes to the DA’s documentation. She said it meant objectors weren't given enough time to lodge their objections.

Speaking after last week’s NF5 meeting, neighbours were critical of the DA process and the confusing late changes.

“It just feels that speed, not safety, has been the priority for council,” said Christina Bowen.

“It’s been an absolute sham the way developers seem to have the sort of access to council that we don’t have,” said another neighbour, Harold Jackson.

“The whole thing has been changed at the last minute, providing no opportunity for us to respond.”

Neighbourhood Forum 5, which initially supported the DA, withdrew that support following representations from residents on traffic, heritage and asbestos grounds.

In a submission to council just hours before the deadline, NF5 secretary David Winterbottom said the forum opposed the proposal, saying it didn’t comply with rear setback requirements, nor minimum depth of lot requirements. The objection also raised concerns with access and creating increased traffic on what is already a busy street.

NF5 also shared community concerns over the late changes to the DA, and in its eleventh hour submission objected to “the lack of time for responses, given the lack of information, multiple amendments to details of the proposal, and overwhelming community objection”.

In a statement, a council spokesperson said it “acknowledges that additional material submitted during the notification period … did not clearly reflect the latest version of the application and presented some challenges to those interested in preparing submissions within the notification period. Council is discussing this issue with the applicant.”

As a result, opponents to the project will get another chance to raise their concerns.

“The updated plans and information will be displayed for public comment, and the application will undergo renotification once the updated information is made available,” the council spokesperson said. “The renotification will include an explanatory note to inform previously notified residents of the circumstances.”

Jeremy Lasek is a member of Neighbourhood Forum 5.