14 Croft Pl, Gerringong, NSW 2534

I am concerned about any work completed by Richard Crookes. Our front yard was dug up as part of the recent works and little attempt was made to restore it to its original state. The lack of stable fencing and the precarious parking of machinery, on our private property, caused significant safety risks to my family and others. I worry that given Crookes’ total disregard for safety—that our children who attend the school and preschool in Croft Place, along with local residents, will be placed in harm’s way should this application go ahead and be awarded to Richard Crookes.

We only have two weeks to formally comment to Council on this development. We’re sending the letter below to council@kiama.nsw.gov.au to request an extension of this exhibition period – we urge others to do the same. This is another big development in our town – we need more time. Not knowing whether this will be granted, we’re also submitting (initial) concerns in a separate letter.
******
Dear General Manager, Kiama Municipal Council,
RE: DA 10.2018.202.1 – Boronia
The current notification period DOES NOT overlap with a South Precinct meeting, which provides our community a forum to have say on matters of local significance, such as this development. Our experience with the current 15.7m, 100-bed development (DA 10.2016.265) has been that initial plans can be misleading and require in-depth scrutiny before we are left with something that cannot be changed and will have lasting negative effects with little recourse. Moreover, we experienced that any concerns not mentioned to Council during the exhibition period, regardless how serious, can be left out of planning negotiations. Extending the period will allow residents the minimum time required to consult and consider the effects of this development and produce meaningful, impactful comments so we get this one right.
CC: Mayor Mark Honey; Deputy Mayor Cathy Rice, Councillor Neil Reilly, Councillor Matt Brown, Councillor Andrew Sloan, Councillor Warren Steel, Councillor Don Watson, Councillor Mark Way, Councillor Mark Westhoff
*****
Based on our experiences with current construction and its outfall, we encourage residents to voice their concerns before it is too late. Formal concerns must be must be made either in writing to PO Box 75 Kiama NSW 2533 or by email to council@kiama.nsw.gov.au

Dear Kiama Council

RE: DA 10.2018.202.1 – Boronia

I am seeking an extension of time for the exhibition period of an additional month.

The transparency and consultation of the previous development on this site was at best disgraceful. An extension would provide opportunities for the community to carefully consider the development and make informed suggestions and comments. As there is a perfectly fine building there at the moment, urgency is not required and more time would be welcome to ensure all voices are informed and heard.

I would also ask council to govern in the interests of the communities they represent. They allowed breaching the Local Environment Plan of their own height restrictions of 11m. Instead the development is 15.7m high. Had the 11m been adhered to it would have been a much nicer fit with the Gerringong surrounds and community. It is a shame that council played patsy for big, for profit businesses and developers who call the shots from Sydney, instead of representing the community they serve.

I would also ask Councillor Brown to abstain from any discussion and voting on this matter as he displayed a clear conflict of interest and lack of professional judgement on the last development. He seemed to be basing decisions on a personal connection with the business. As can be seen from his line of questioning here (skip to speaker 4, 34:27) http://webcast.kiama.nsw.gov.au/archive/video18-0319.php#placeholder

Kind regards,

John Black

Dear General Manager

RE: DA 10.2018.202.1 – Boronia

I write to formally object to the current proposed development of Boronia in Gerringong.

Whilst I am generally supportive of re developing the site, I have issue with the current proposal. As this will be a full knockdown rebuild, this is the time to address some of the issues affecting local residents.

Having a 24/7 business in a residential zone causes many problems. These include, but are not limited to:

Safety

Archibald Road and Croft Place are very busy due to Gerringong Public School and Pre School. There is traffic congestion, heavy parking use, high pedestrian movements of families and young children walking, commuting on scooters and bikes. The access point to Boronia in such a busy environment and on a difficult, blind corner exacerbates problems and presents risk of serious injury or death. Many movements including waste removal, staff, visitors, gas refills, deliveries, ambulances, patient transport and security are continuous through the 24 hour period.

The new build has an opportunity to reduce stress in this residential zone by closing off the Croft Place entry and using the main entry off Greta Street. This would mitigate risks to young and vulnerable children using this area. This can be done easily and much cheaper during the design and planning phase before anything is built.

Noise

The above mentioned 24 hour business movements create additional noise not normally found in a residential zone, disrupting and disturbing residents. Consultation should occur as where best to place bins, gas points, parking, delivery points, drop off zones, mechanical plants, communal areas etc. Placing these in between the new 15.7m development and the proposed Boronia development, and closing the Croft Place access, instead using the main property entrance off Greta Street, will diminish the negative impacts on the local residents and provide an easier, less dangerous path for all movements.

Privacy

The most recent block of flats built by Uniting impinges greatly on the privacy of many homes in the area. Where previously I looked out into trees and blue sky I now have 24 large windows and 2 balconies looking directly into my dining area and backyard. I have great concern regarding the lack of transparency with the process as I never received any notification from council and the original plans I was shown by a concerned resident showed the building to be 5 metres lower than was constructed. Needless to say I have concerns around what might look reasonable on plans, being amended without full disclosure and transparency one would expect in a truly consultative process.

Light Spillover

Having a big business that operates non stop, 24 hours a day sees light pollution right through the night. This is abnormal for a residential street and something that needs to be considered in the design.

Unfinished/Incomplete Information

The current proposal is unfinished, lacks detail and contains inconsistencies. It is unreasonable to expect residents to endorse a proposal without all of the information and detail.

For these reasons I formally reject the current proposal and ask that council extend the exhibition period for at least one month to allow for Uniting to properly finish the plans and time for the community to consider them in detail and make suggestions.

Kind regards,

John Black

Dear General Manager
RE: DA 10.2018.202.1 – Boronia
I write to formally object to the current proposed development of Boronia in Gerringong.

As a residents of Croft Place, we would like to raise the following objections to the proposed development of no 14 Croft Place by Uniting Care.

1. Traffic management in Croft place
2. Noise and other impacts on immediate neighbours

This development is for the demolition and rebuilding of the Boronia Dementia care unit. We have no objections to the principle of Uniting care upgrading and improving this facility, however as the existing building is to be demolished, we feel that there is scope to place the new building so that it is more within the Mayflower property and to reduce the impact of this 24 hour business on an otherwise residential area.

1. Traffic management in Croft Place.
The new plans retain the carparking and driveway access to the new Boronia unit following the existing driveway alignment onto Croft Place. An otherwise quiet residential street which at peak times accommodates a high volume of traffic; vehicle, pedestrian and bicycles when children are going to and from both Gerringong Public School and Gerringong Preschool. The Boronia driveway is right on the bend of the road at a point where traffic volume, parking and pedestrian volume can become chaotic and dangerous, especially in a street without footpaths and other safe zones for pedestrians.

To remove the Boronia driveway and carparking from Croft Place and re-site within the Mayflower development via Greta Street would have a significant impact on removing further traffic movements from Croft Place and potentially improving safety in this area. Would it not be preferable to address this an improve the safety of children and others in this street?

By re-siting bin and other services access away from Croft Place, the resulting noise and annoyance, often early morning but also at any time of the day, to the residential homes adjacent from multiple heavy vehicle movements a week would also be welcome. Also be aware that most vehicles then travel down to the end of Croft Place to turn around so these vehicle movements do affect many properties.

2. Noise and other impacts on immediate neighbours.
If the new building footprint was shifted slightly North East away from Croft Place, the new building could have a better defensible boundary and become more of a part of the Mayflower complex. This could possibly have the benefit of ensuring better safety for residents of the complex as well by removing a point of exit. As near neighbours we have returned confused residents on 2 occasions to the unit who have been found wandering at the bottom of the Easement behind Croft Place.

Noise and light impacts on the existing residences could also be better mitigated if the building footprint was moved away from Croft Place, allowing for greater depth of planting rather than the removal of some mature trees and other plants as currently proposed.

We hope that Uniting Care would seek to develop this site sensitively and with better consultation with neighbours than has been in evidence to date. We are aware that other neighbours of the development have asked for more time for exhibition of the plans and more transparent and detailed information about this proposal. We support them in this request and join them in rejecting the proposal in the current form.

Kind regards

Penny & Tim Rushby-Smith

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to object to DA 10.2018.202 – the demolition and construction of Boronia aged care facility. I object on the basis that the current plans do not take full consideration of safety in the current configuration of the driveway access to the facility. Elderly neighbours have told me that Boronia was constructed at a time when it was at the end of a cul de sac, without the possibility of through-traffic. Since then, Gerringong Public School and Preschool have been built and Croft Place extended, so that now the driveway entrance to Boronia is located on a blind corner, in immediate vicinity to an entrance to the school, to a pathway that leads down to this entrance (from Greta Street above) and just down the road from the preschool. It is an unsafe situation for our children. I support the upgrade and improvement to this important residential care facility, but the demolition of the existing facility presents an unparalleled opportunity to improve on safety. I propose that the driveway access and services instead be directed to the new Boronia building from the north, through the larger Mayflower retirement facility. I would hope that Uniting, as a church in our community, in conjunction with Kiama Municipal Council, would together see the way to taking this opportunity to improve on safety for Gerringong’s children.

I also object to the assessment in the Statement of Environmental Effects that the building “will not result in any unreasonable impacts upon the adjoining properties particularly in relation to a loss of privacy”. The removal of trees (an unknown number; the various DA documents refer to differing numbers of trees to be removed) and increased number of windows on the western side of the proposed building (facing our property) will result in a loss of privacy for our residence. The plans show a fence along this perimeter, but our experience with the current Uniting development (DA 10.2016.265) is that these plans are an “artist’s impression” that aren’t necessarily strictly followed. If the design, materials, and construction of this fence is at Uniting’s discretion, then there is no assurance that it will provide adequate privacy to both our property and residents within the Boronia facility. I propose that this fence be of 100% coverage to ensure privacy for both parties.

Kind regards,
Lisa Wraith

Dear Council

I wish to object to the proposed new development of Mayflower by Uniting Care (DA 10.2018.202.1 - Boronia).

I am a resident of Gerringong and mother of two children who attend Gerringong Public School. My husband and I use Croft Place every day to collect my two children from school. I also have another child who attends Gerringong Preschool which is located on Croft Place.

I am extremely concerned about the use of Croft Place as an access road to Mayflower while the building is being developed by Uniting Care. I am also concerned about the ongoing use of Croft Place by Uniting Care as an entry to the Mayflower facility and the performance of the developer of the current Mayflower development.

My concerns focus on a number of issues:

1. Child safety
Croft Place is already extremely congested during peak school times and often dangerous for children who are leaving school and making their way home. Many children have to cross Croft Place to access a lane-way which they walk up/down to get to Greta St and walk to and from home. Many children also have to walk along Croft Place, or cross Croft Place, to get to their parents who are picking them up. Some of these children are as young as five years old. I have witnessed near misses with children and cars due to the amount of cars in Croft Place at peak school times and the poor visibility drivers have of children crossing the road or leaving the school gate.

It would be unsafe for children to walk to and from school, or use the school entry gate located on Croft place, if the developer was able to use Croft Place to access the Mayflower site. Larger vehicles would have even less visibility of the school children who also use Croft Place, and would increase vehicle traffic which would increase the probability of a tragedy occurring. There has unfortunately already been one traumatic accident where a child was hit by a car at the school and very seriously injured.

I encourage Council to visit Croft Place during school times and see for itself the chaos that already ensues. Adding building vehicles to this would be represent failure of Council to protect the safety of Gerringong children. Council must place the safety of Gerringong children as the highest priority during the decision-making process. Otherwise, it will be a tragedy waiting to happen.

2. Practical and logistical issues
I live in Jupiter St, near the Mayflower site. I have been disturbed at the level of congestion the current development of Mayflower by Uniting Care has created on Greta St, and the lack of care both Uniting Care, and the developer, has shown for the Gerringong community in this regard.

As Council is aware, Greta St, is a much-used road in Gerringong as it links the town to the school, preschool, Elambra Estate and Belinda St. It has become overwhelmed with parked vehicles that belong to the builders working on the site, as well as other large machinery, vehicles, diggers etc, that are being used on the site. In addition, if a large truck needs to access the site (which occurs very frequently) you can be held up for anywhere between 5-15 minutes just sitting in your car on Greta St as the trucks have to completely block Greta St in order to navigate their truck into the access driveway. As a result, Greta St can feel unsafe to use, particularly as I have witnessed very little, almost non-existent, traffic management put in place by Uniting Care or the developer to help residents navigate their way through the disruption.

Based on this experience, I am concerned about the impact of similar vehicles trying to access the Croft place driveway. Croft Place is a small suburban cul-de-sac. It was never designed to have large vehicles use it or large numbers of parked vehicles on it. During peak school times parents already struggle to find parking due to congestion. When they do, the number of cars parked on each side of the road narrows Croft Place considerably, to the point where it can be very difficult to drive even a normal sized sedan on the road.

I actually can't see how the developer will physically and logistically be able to use Croft Place to access the Mayflower site without completely shutting down Croft Place at times, which would be deeply unfair to residents and parents who use it to access the school. If workers on the development site are able to use Croft Place to park their cars it will also clog up the street and deeply affect parents ability to access the school.

The needs of the Gerringong Public School community and nearby residents must be placed above the desires of Uniting Care and the developer.

3. Safety on Greta St
It is well known by the Gerringong community, and Kiama Council, that there is no safe place for children to cross Greta St to get to and from school. There is a small crossing area at the bottom of Jupiter St which is on a blind spot and virtually impossible for children to be able to see oncoming cars due to the position of the "crossing" and the big dip in the road that cars can be on and not be seen from the crossing. Even as an adult that is taller than children, I can't even see many cars that are on the road when trying to work out when to safely cross. There have been many calls for this "crossing" to be made into a proper zebra crossing to increase safety, but Council (I understand) has deemed Greta St too unsafe for children to cross, even on a zebra crossing.

I am concerned that allowing Uniting Care and the developer to use Croft Place will increase the number of cars and large vehicles on Greta St making it even more unsafe for children to cross Greta St on their way to and from school. To access Croft Place, the trucks will need to go through the "crossing". Parents will be extremely fearful of letting their child walk to and from school for fear of them being hit at the "crossing" with the increased amount of cars and trucks that will drive through it and the poor visibility people have at the crossing.

Parents must be able to let their children walk to and from school safely. Council must prioritise child safety over developer ease during its decision-making.

4. Ongoing use of Croft Place by Mayflower
Croft Place cannot be used by Uniting Care as an ongoing future driveway or access point to the Mayflower facility. This driveway must be permanently closed and all entries to Mayflower must be via Belinda St or Greta St.

All the reasons stated above in relation to increased cars and heavy vehicles accessing Mayflower during the building phase also apply to the future every-day use of Mayflower. Using the existing Croft Place driveway as a main access point to Mayflower will create more congestion on an already heavily congested street, reduce child safety on both Croft Place and Greta St and increase traffic for the poor residents of Croft Place who are already badly affected by traffic associated with the school and preschool.

Council must recognise that Croft Place is a small suburban cul-de-sac not designed for this purpose and this must be reflected in the design of the proposed development.

5. Performance of the current developer
I have been disappointed in the performance of the current developer of the Mayflower site, and call on Council to put conditions in place to ensure that this next proposed development is not conducted in the same fashion.

In addition to the poor traffic safety and management and parking issues on Greta St, I have seen the developer on many occasions park heavy vehicles/machinery inappropriately by the side of the road or just left in residents and ratepayers front yards when work on the site has finished for the day or week. I have also been dismayed at the way the front yards of residents and ratepayers who live near Mayflower have been ripped up and destroyed by the developer, and not been returned to their prior state.

This cannot be allowed to occur with this new proposed development.

6. Height of current Mayflower development
Whilst I support Uniting Care updating the Mayflower facility and in doing so improving the lives of it's residents, I am deeply disappointed at the lack of compliance Uniting Care has displayed with the height restrictions placed on the current building. I understand that the building Gerringong now has is much higher than was approved in the development application, which has now potentially set a precedent for the allowable height of other new buildings in Gerringong. It has also resulted in the building being totally inappropriate for its residential location.

I am also deeply disappointed that it appears that Council has done nothing to address this lack of compliance. I implore Council to comprehensively assess this current proposal to ensure it is appropriate for the community, and to rigorously monitor building stages to ensure restrictions are complied with.

I look forward to seeing what Council decides in relation to this proposal and hope that it places the needs and desires of the Gerringong community as the highest priority during the decision-making process.

Many thanks,
Lana Hall

Dear General Manager

I am writing to object to the current proposal regarding DA 10.2018.202.1; demolition and construction of Boronia residential aged care facility.

I do so because the plans currently available to the public are inadequate, incomplete, lacking detail and fail to consider Boronia’s place in Gerringong as it stands today.

Safety
I am unable to think of a higher priority for the community than the safety of the residents. When Boronia was first built, the area was very different. Croft Place ended at the Boronia driveway. No school or preschool existed on the corner of Croft Place and in Archibald Road. Elambra estate did not exist and there were still many vacant blocks in and around Croft/Greta/Archibald. It was much quieter and a reasonable option to enter Boronia through Croft Place at this time.

Decades on and today it is very different. Croft Place has been extended past the Boronia entrance, which is now situated on a blind corner. The use of Croft Place and surrounding streets is much higher due to the school, preschool and additional dwellings. Children walk and ride bikes/scooters to school. Younger siblings of preschool and school students walk with mothers, fathers and grandparents. Parking is at a premium during events and drop off/pick up times highlighting the inappropriate nature of the Boronia entry on a busy and blind corner.

Large service vehicles entering and exiting Boronia through Croft Place exacerbates the issue greatly. With limited street space and a blind corner, in addition to car movements, having large trucks using Croft as an entrance to Boronia is not acceptable. The gas refill truck for example parks for an extended period of time, right on the blind corner making it extremely dangerous. The garbage truck reversing out is also of great concern.

During the demolition and build it is inappropriate for Uniting to use Archibald Road and Croft Place. The movements will be greatly increased and the danger just too high.

These issues can be eradicated by Uniting making alterations to the plans to close off Croft Place entrance to Boronia, use the main entrance either through Belinda St, or more likely Greta Street and relocating the services such as bins, gas and deliveries to the northern side.

In doing so the area will be much safer for all residents, including those in Boronia as the site can be more secure.

Noise
The nature of having a huge 24 hour business in a residential area creates conflict. Vehicle movements at all hours disturb residents, especially large vehicles including deliveries, waste removal, gas refilling and the mini bus.

Adding weight to the safety objection on the grounds of entry/exit placement, the noise/disruption issues can be diminished by moving the entrance and facilities into Boronia to the northern side through Greta Street.

The documents being exhibited in the current DA proposal are incomplete. The noise survey is not meticulous. The plant room placement is not on the plans. There should be full documentation available so decisions/comments can be informed and considered in the best interest of everyone.

Health
There is no demolition plan available. Demolition will happen in close proximity to hundreds of residents and children in the school and preschool. A building that age I’m sure will have asbestos but there will also be dust and debris. How will this be undertaken in a safe manner as not to expose Gerringong residents including young kids to hazardous, potentially life threatening bi products of the demolition? It would be good to see the plan and be able to make comment.

I would suggest that Croft Place be totally inappropriate for use of removal of the waste. Trucks should use the Greta Street entrance for both entry and exit. Both for health reasons and safety concerns listed above. It is far too dangerous to have large trucks using Archibald Road and Croft Place. Reasons listed above under safety apply too.

I fail to see the rush here as the current Boronia building is in working order. I am genuinely supportive of the redevelopment however it must be done in consultation with the community and in keeping with what is best for everyone. This is not an all or nothing proposal. The residents of Boronia deserve a new facility. However, this is a chance to get this right for everyone and make Gerringong a better, safer, more enjoyable place for all those who live, work and visit this beautiful town.

For these reasons I object to the current proposal.

I also request an extension of one month to the exhibition period. This will provide adequate time for Uniting to display all of the necessary plans and reasonable time for the community to consider them in detail. Single person extensions are not good enough and don’t allow careful due diligence by the community and council for the proposal.

Regards,
Catherine Black

Dear General Manager, Kiama Municipal Council,
RE: DA 10.2018.202.1 – Boronia
I am writing to object to the current proposal regarding DA 10.2018.202.1; demolition and construction of Boronia residential aged care facility.
I am concerned at the short time allowed to comment on this DA and feel an extension of the exhibition period is necessary on such an important development.
I was surprised and disappointed at the size of the final build of the Mayflower’s last development. The height was more than expected after seeing the plans and I am concerned that it might happen again at Boronia.
As Boronia is situated in the middle of a housing and educational area I feel it is extremely important to give the development due attention.
The issues of safety, noise, privacy, traffic congestion and lighting need to be considered and addressed.
I am regularly in the area as a casual teacher at the school and witness the heavy traffic, not only of cars, but bicycles and pedestrians. The school entrance opposite Boronia is a grave concern. Not just at drop off and pick up times but on the numerous days of special events and assemblies.
The Uniting Church needs to rethink the access/main entrance of Boronia. Has Greta St been considered as an alternative?
In short:
The plans need more detail. They appear incomplete.
The community needs more time to discuss the impacts on their homes and children (school and preschool).
Demolition plans need to be shared.
Council needs to ensure that the development reflects the changed residential area that surrounds Boronia now.
The community needs to be confident that plans will be adhered to.
Sincerely,
Bernadette Black.

Dear General Manager, Kiama Municipal Council,

I write in objection to Development Application 10.2018.202.1 – demolition and rebuild of Boronia.

I note that the Director of Environmental Services granted a one-week extension for my submission and any other submissions upon request from community members.

I object to this DA because it does not allow community residents full consideration of noise impacts. The noise assessment is inadequate. The location of the mechanical plant room has not been determined and therefore a thorough assessment is not available for public consideration. I do not accept the argument that Council will apply conditions and monitor at a later stage. The mechanical room is potentially the area with the greatest noise impacts on neighbours. Postponing these critical details beyond public exhibition essentially discredits the public exhibition when a developer can omit information. I suggest the developer provide a complete and transparent assessment for public consideration.

Similarly, I object to this DA because critical documents and information regarding the demolition and construction phase are not available during the public exhibition. Once again, the lack of supporting information directly conflicts with the principle of the exhibition period. Items not included, which are certainly of great interest to local residents, include a Demolition Plan, Hazardous Materials Assessment and a Construction Waste Management Plan. I suggest that Council responsibly request in advance all relevant information from developers and share that information with constituents during the exhibition period. I do not accept the argument that Council will apply conditions and take responsibility for the outcomes of the demolition and construction phase. As residents of Croft Place, we have been subjected to numerous potentially harmful dust events during construction of the 100-bed facility regardless of conditions placed in the DA. Moreover, reports of these events were not accepted by Council and directed towards the development Site Manager and/or the Private Certifier located in Wollongong. The consequence is a disconnect between public concerns and management measures leading to potentially harmful events. Indeed dust mitigation is important, particularly for neighbours with asthmatic conditions.

I object to this DA because it will greatly increase the amount of light spillover into the residential home at 16 Croft Place. The current building has no external lights and only one window located on the westernmost side of the building (the current building has a section that juts out to the west). The proposed development will increase the westernmost footprint as well as the number of windows on that side from one to six. The plans in the DA do not have the resolution that afford neighbours a complete understanding of light spillover. Most buildings in the greater Mayflower complex have external lights that remain lit during the entire night in addition to motion sensor lights trigger by wind, which spillover into neighbouring homes. The southwest stairwell of the 100-bed facility provides an example how initial public plans can deceive residents by appearance and lead to unexpected impacts. The southwest stairwell appears enclosed in the proposed DA of the 100-bed development. As scaffolding and construction unveiled an open stairwell, developers were contacted and replied with a promise (by email) to enclose the stairwell because as we have witnessed during construction, it is a location where people congregate and can view directly into our living area. Moreover, the motion sensor lights within the stairwell trigger a bright, flickering event that spills over into our living room. Regardless of this written commitment to assist, the stairwell remains open and further requests have been ignored.

I object to this DA because there is a loss of privacy incurred to the residential home at 16 Croft for reasons mentioned above. Moreover, the DA includes plans to remove a number of trees that currently mitigate light spillover and views into adjoining residential homes from this 24-hour-service business. I do not accept the argument that set-back is sufficient to mitigate light spillover and loss of privacy. The developers of this DA also used this argument in the DA for the 100-bed development behind Croft Place to refute neighbours objections to development impacts and justify a height limit that exceeds the Local Environment Plan by nearly 5 metres. Residents are left with a severe incursion on their privacy and extensive light spillover, regardless of a setback. In addition, the Boronia demolition and construction DA has an architectural impression of a fence along the western side of the new development. Based on our experience (see above and below), it is impossible to know what this fence will look like and if it will mitigate light spillover and loss of privacy. I suggest to mitigate the potential negative effects, the developer include in the DA a plan to plant a hedge of native trees between business and community residents as selected in consultation with the local community.

In regards to transparency, Kiama Council’s unique argument and commitment to retain information from the public for copyright reasoning allows developers and builders unfair discretion in the final look of the building. To provide context, the final and approved plans for the 100-bed facility located adjacent to this prosed site were not immediately made available to the public. The reason provided to concerned neighbours was copyright. The uncertainty caused great concern and anxiety. A request from residents to the developers to share the final and approved plans was denied. The reason for this (as explained by a development representative), “public plans create a level of expectation”, specifically the look and character of the building, which the developer was not prepared to commit to. Unfortunately, many residents are extremely disappointed to see variation from the preliminary and publicly available plans compared to the results as the building has slowly been unveiled. Architectural impressions are not indicative of the outcome, which can be costly to residents.

I object to this DA because it promotes a dangerous environment in direct vicinity to public school access. Entrance and access to a 24-hour-service business should not be located on a blind corner in a residential neighbourhood where hundreds of kids walk and ride throughout the day, week and weekend. The greatest risk to children will be during the demolition and construction phase as traffic and parking, along with removal of hazardous materials, will increase the likelihood of an accident occurring in a location heavily used by children. Moreover, the risk of this 24-hour-service business continues as long as the driveway access remains on Croft Place. I suggest that Council require that the developer relocate the driveway access of their 24-hour-service business from Croft Place through the greater Mayflower site. This change will also improve safety for Mayflower residents. Speaking to residents of Croft Place, Boronia residents have, on occasion, been found along Croft Place needing assistance. This proposed demolition and rebuild, done properly, provides opportunity for improvements for all.

I object to this DA because the information regarding tree removal is inconsistent throughout the public documents and therefore difficult for the public to ascertain environmental effects. I do not accept the argument that Council will resolve these discrepancies independent of public exhibition. Assuming the worst-case scenario, the Arboricultural Impact Assessment accepts numerous tree removals with very little justification. Croft Place residents are well aware that Council takes residential requests to remove trees very seriously and errors on the side of caution. This should also be the case for business developments. For example, a 20-metre Eucalyptus pilularis Blackbutt located outside the footprint of the proposed development is assessed for removal because it divides at 2.5m from ground level. This beautiful tree has been in that location for years and only now, the developer proposes its removal. The removal appears more opportune for convenience during construction than necessary for the safety of residents. Reducing the height of the tree would be more appropriate if indeed safety is the main concern. We have more than one Eucalyptus divided into multiple leaders at a similar ground height as this tree and fail to imagine 1) requesting removal, or 2) Council approving it. I suggest Council consider alternatives to planned tree removals located outside the footprint of the proposed building. Moreover, tree planting should replace felled trees at a minimum of 1-to-1 at the nearest possible location.

Thank you for considering the voices of the community. Indeed, as Croft Place residents, we are extremely interested with the outcomes of this and future developments within our neighbourhood. In that, community residents deserve a well-informed opportunity to consider ALL aspects of this demolition and development that could potentially have longstanding harmful effects on our social wellbeing. For these reasons, we express our concerns with great consideration and demand equal attention from the Council who represents our community.

Kind regards