303 Blackhead Road, Hallidays Point NSW 2430

Manufactured Home Estate

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website over 1 year ago. It was received by them 3 days earlier.

(Source: Mid-Coast Council (Greater Taree), reference 99/2019/DA)

54 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. B Kennedy commented

    So what is different to this application from the application that was strongly objected to by Hallidays Point residents and subsequently rejected by Council last year? Do these applications just keep getting submitted again and again until developers get their own way?

  2. Malcolm Fraser commented

    M.Fraser
    This appears to be a rework of the Gateway application the only difference are view
    of houses with garages instead of carports. The council should not consider this as
    would be a definite downfall for all of Blackhead. Will the same people speak out in
    support of this or come to their senses for the good of our area.

  3. Anne Mayne commented

    Yes, I would be interested to know what is different. Still the same objections, and I cannot find it on the Council website. What gives please?? Annie Mayne.

  4. Sandra Chan commented

    Councillors would be wise to note the significant Community objection to this rehashed DA. This development is not in the best interests of the community!
    For others wanting to join the objectors please contact me on 041993940. We are prepared to fight this DA and Council in the L&E court if need be. It is not a suitable development for an infrastructure poor community.
    Sandii Chan

  5. Frances Crampton commented

    This application has been rejected previously. Does just changing the names of the applicants make it different? Do developers just keep trying to wear people down? How can this application even been considered? Surely Council staff should review the application and advise that if it is predominantly the same as the previous one which was rejected, it is not acceptable. There was community protest before. It will been even greater this time! This Council slapped us in the face by ignoring majority opinion about Barrington Coast. The Community will not accept a second slap in the face.

  6. Maxine Richards commented

    Does council think our community would not see this application, here they go again trying to pass a previous application that was defeated and we will fight against this being approved, listen to the people Council, the community do not want this to happen.
    Council members do not vote in favour, you have been elected to listen to your members, so start doing so.

  7. Kevin Croak commented

    This DA surely has to be rejected by Council based not only on the previous rejection but also on the basis that the Mid Coast Council (MCC) LEP will not be completed until 2021. Council's website clearly states that it is moving towards developing a defining strategy for land use in both rural and residential precincts. The briefing paper commissioned by MCC and prepared by Perception Planning Pty Ltd whom were engaged by Council to deliver on the scope of this project (the LEP) in part lays out the issues with locating MHEs on residential lands [including recent history] that must be considered wholly by Council in finally completing the LEP. Community consultation is paramount in the decision making process on this matter and I would encourage the "hundreds" of residents in Hallidays Point and Green Point especially, that object to this inappropriate development to sign onto the Councils public consultation mailing list to be kept up date and asked for input by Council on the LEP.
    Also, on the 6th March 2018 NSW Government responded to MCC's request for direction on the MHE/LEP situation and received the response" it is not considered feasible to proceed with a stand-alone amendment to Council's local environment plan as put forward in your letter". So, the ball is firmly in MCC's court.

  8. Julia Gilroy commented

    It is unbelievable that this application has been resubmitted with little or no changes made to the one rejected previously. The Hallidays Point Community is strongly opposed to this inappropriate development and, as rate-payers, we expect our Councillors to listen to our concerns. As mentioned before, Council needs to have a clear planning policy for these MHEs before granting approval for them to inundate every small community. The lack of infrastructure alone should surely preclude such a high density development in this location!

  9. Kaisor Sefian commented

    Tallwoods should be left alone for people to build their own/dream home in such a nice location.
    The golf course and lovely homes is what drew me in.

    The design plan and estimated cost of works indicate cheaply built dwellings. Won’t be long before it falls apart.

    They have found out from the local police that crime is low in the area. If the elderly do not obtain the housing provided and it is given to public housing we can expect crime to go through the roof.

    I personally do not want my views to be of public housing.

    Kind regards

  10. Hanny Schott commented

    As all the previous comments say.....what is the purpose of a
    “Gateway in disguise” application??
    This high density development has no place in Tallwoods Village, I strongly object to this reapplication.

  11. Terry Young commented

    Sadly as I understand it the State planning rules allow this type of development and despite our objections if the applicant takes any refusal to the Land & Environment Court they will win. Nevertheless we need to scream loudly so that they are aware that such a development will not be welcomed. Not least for the impact it will have on internal road traffic on Coastal View Drive. The traffic estimates provided are a joke.
    We are already suffering from the "Fire" sale of land and rural block development with a consequent lowering of building standards within the village.

  12. Lorna Cullerton commented

    Surely not again! This application has previously been well ventilated and studied. Council's opinion, together with that of the residents was that this was not an application that would benefit the community or the environment. nothing has changed either in the application or residents' opinions. When Council originally rejected this application, they outlined at length why this application was not viable. Surely re-lodging a rejected application is a waste of resources and money.

    I have confidence that Council will uphold their original opinion and stance guarding the rights of residents. it is very obvious that as there is relatively few changes to the application, Council's opinion has already been published.

    This matter will be closed monitored by all residents for Council's transparency, in that they must uphold their original stance and reject the application again!

    If the application is merely a guise to enable the developer to head to the Land & Environment Court, surely that the fact that Council have rejected it twice must make some impact.

  13. Felicia Lieberman commented

    I understand that anyone has the freedom to request a development application. However, it would be beneficial to consider the historical development leading to this da as there were so many reasons it was overturned.

  14. Leone Turnbull commented

    It really baffles me, that this Council has absolutely no forward thinking or planning. Why do we just have to have every type of application just thrown together ad hoc, wherever the whim takes the developers.
    We have a great opportunity to really plan our area and make it the showpiece of the Mid North Coast, with designated areas for every type of facility and every type of zoning.
    Why do we have to once again fight council so that they will open their eyes to the wishes of the people?
    We would all love to be able to say that we are the lucky ones who live in the Mid Coast Council area. But until Council supports us, the voters, and not the opportunistic few, we will not be able to.
    Hopefully one day, common sense will prevail, and we may see a beautifully thought out place to live, with other areas wishing they could be like us. Or am I dreaming?

  15. Sue Langridge and Peter Kiteley commented

    Sue Langridge and Peter Kiteley

    How can this application even be considered. It was as a community that we banded together and strongly objected the previous application for a Manufactured Home Estate on this land. This proposed development is totally inappropriate for 303 Blackhead Road, Halliday's Point and we will continue to fight against bad development.

  16. Lynne Brissett commented

    To the councillors,
    It is of great sadness that once again we have to fight for this DA to be squashed. The proposal is not inline with the dwellings in Tallwoods.
    This will not only create more traffic and congestion but with an influx of new people, how on earth will the local doctors etc be able to accommodate this aging demographic when most doctors have closed their books? I was sick for two days before I could see my own doctor, due to the huge demand. There is no bus service therefore when these people age to the point of no licence how will they get around? There is no infrastructure now and this has been the case for the last 30 years!
    This is an unrealistic DA with no thought to local residents let alone any that god forbid ever makes one of these houses their home.

    I did not purchase my beautiful home in Tallwoods to have it devalued by relocatables.

    I object most profusely to this proposal.

  17. Ben Atkinson commented

    Sir/Madam,
    I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed development on the following grounds:
    1. At capacity, the development would have significant impact on local traffic. This poses significant issue along Both Blackhead Road, The Boulevard and Coastal View Drive. An example of this is the significant issues caused by the currently occurring roadworks at the intersection of Blackhead Road and Diamond Beach Road.
    2. Car Parking on the site. The plans tendered expose the area to significant issues arising from parking availability shortfalls within the development. This will inevitably result in increased parking pressures on surrounding streets.
    3. Given the housing density of the proposal and the limited choices available with prefabricated dwellings, there is a significant risk that the proposed dwellings will not fit in with the remainder of the Tallwoods estate.
    4. Given the change in the surface structure of the allotment, during periods of heavy rain, there is a potential for stormwater inundation of both the Boulevard and Blackhead Road. This is not addressed in the Development Application.
    5. Intensity. The development application potentially significantly increases the intensity of housing in the area and once more is out of character with the remainder of the district let alone the Tallwoods Estate.
    6. Visual Bulk. The proposed development will significantly impact upon the visual bulk of surrounding dwellings and the Tallwoods estate as a whole.
    8. Loss of property value: this development and its intensity will inevitably result in significant property valuation downgrades of all dwellings within the Tallwoods Estate and Hallidays Point as a whole.
    The development is certainly not in the 'public interest' at all. Residents of these lifestyle estates are typically purported by developers as attracting persons whom are over 50 years of age and are retired or work part-time. However, this is a comment not supported by evidence. If this was the case, why is this development not a retirement village or a development for persons above a certain age? It is generally a mere tactic used by developers aimed to deceive. What we will see is "affordable housing" for persons of lower socio-economic status in a development which will increase crime in the local area. Given the nearest police station is over 20 minutes away, it is certainly not in the public interest to have such a large scale development in an area such as Tallwoods Village. Public safety will be put at risk.

    What must also be taken into account is the access from Coastal View Drive. Since Tallwoods Village is subject to construction standards under a covenant (to ensure a high amenity standard), to have a manufactured home estate with a significant number of low standard housing lots put in a small suburb containing high quality and low density housing makes no sense whatsoever. It will be an eye-sore and will lower housing prices. The construction site will not benefit the Tallwoods Golf Course at all, namely because this housing development is targetting a lower socio-economic class of individuals.
    We do not want the character of Tallwoods Village to be altered which will be the inevitable conclusion if this development is approved.

    Experience has shown that Crime rates that come with low socio-economic estates will soar, and will pull the already under-resourced local Police away from their main townships (i.e. Taree and Forster). The local police are already in dispute with the government seeking more police for the area and this development will potentially place the already strained resources under further strain. This will no doubt result in a significant reduction in service provision to our community.

    As stated, the large traffic volumes will pose a danger to road users and pedestrians. Blackhead Road is already over-represented in injury collision statistics and this development places the community at further risk. Public transport is generally non-existent here.

    Thank you for taking the time to consider my submission.

  18. Linda Stryland commented

    I am lodging an objection to the number of homes that are being considered in this application. We agree with many of the objections already raised.

    Very concerned about the atmosphere of this peaceful area being impacted - traffic, crime rate increase and type of homes which could make the area look very much like a holiday park instead of a peaceful retreat with abundance of birdlife and trees.

    If Council does approve this development surely it could be done with less homes and more landscaping to hide the homes from existing areas.

    Thank you
    Linda Stryland

  19. Nicky Cunningham commented

    I have recently acquired a lovely block of land in Tallwoods and was looking forward to living in a beautiful, tranquil estate. The main reasons I invested in this estate was the very low crime rate and to be surrounded by decent people, and not have to live in fear of break and enters. As most people are aware, there is very little employment in this region, so my question is how are these people going to earn their money? Oh that's right, their income comes from us "the tax payer". If this development goes ahead the council will then have to consider building a local Centrelink office !!!

  20. Veronika mcInerney commented

    I wish to submit an objection to the proposed manufactured home estate at 303 Blackhead Road Tallwoods.

    I chose Tallwoods Village area as a place of future residence because of its quiet, peaceful outlook and low density living. Tallwoods estate insists on a high standard of building and is a low density area. I strongly object to a manufactured home estate on the boundary because it will increase the traffic in the area. I’m sure the intentions of the builders of this estate are honourable. However, I find it difficult to believe that mainly over 55s will choose to live in a large, fairly isolated estate, with few facilities that older people require. In that event, the owners could lower the prices to sell/rent and that would attract low socio-economic residents. This area is quite a way from Taree and the police station. Tallwoods is a lifestyle development and this manufactured homes estate could threaten the peace and security of the residents.

    Thank you for considering my submission.

    Veronika McInerney
    21 St Andrews Crescent
    Tall woods Village

  21. Lisa Cunningham commented

    I strongly object to this proposed development.
    To even consider ruining this beautiful exclusive estate is abhorrent.
    As mentioned at the recent meeting regarding this development, the excess traffic and lack of transport (which is not required nor wanted) would cause chaos. The mention of caravans and boats parked at these unpleasant constructions would add to this eyesore. Not to mention the possibility of their children returning to the nest with their young offspring would cause more car space problems thus spilling onto surrounding streets.
    We are all well aware of what occurs when the lower socio-economic live within close proximity of one another.
    I do believe that this area is like the Vaucluse of the Mid North Coast and we all have worked hard and been wise with our money which has enabled us to build and live in this beautiful estate. It would be a classic case of socialism to allow this development to go ahead.
    There are areas that would be more appropriate for this type of development and Tallwoods is certainly not one of them.

  22. Elvira Fokes commented

    I certainly agree with all the points that have been raised against the approval of 99/2019/DA being granted. The negative result that would arise from such a development is distressing. Many retired ladies live alone and enjoy a very secure environment in this "haven". Such a development will surely have an impact on their well-being.

    I strongly urge Council to reject this application and any further ones that may be submitted in the future.

  23. Allan and Sharon Egan commented

    We would like to object to this latest application for the Manufactured Homes Estate at Tallwoods. Once again the “quick buck” comes in to play with no thought for planning disasters that will ensue from this kind of development. There is that profit motive, cloaked behind developmentalism: it will create jobs, homes etc. and any opposition to it is bad. I have heard of the concerns of residents being labelled as self interest reinforced by ignorance and/or prejudice. Well here are our concerns ...

    * Regardless of all the “reports” submitted by the developer, the threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage and degradation to Tallwoods still exists.
    * The development is out of scale and character with this area - an over development of the site. There is no consideration for the compatibility of the design with the character of this area and the increased density will bestow urban-related problems on it.
    * This is a rural/country landscape next to a golf course with a surrounding fragile environment. Increasing the urban character undermines the beauty and natural attractions of this area.
    * Concerns about the economic and social impacts (loss of property values, traffic, the effects on residents’ peace, comfort and privacy) are a factor to be considered.
    * Infrastructure and roads capacity is greatly lacking... despite what the Council’s computer says!
    * Country areas are different to urban areas - there is higher car dependence and lack of public transport. There is inadequate car parking and Coastal View Drive will become a parking lot. And there are the school children to consider when walking to the bus stop.

    But in saying all of this, we have confidence that the Council will uphold their previous decision. Development of the Manning/Great Lakes area needs to be carefully thought out. Inappropriate development is IRREVERSIBLE. This is a kind of “piecemeal infill development” and as such is unsympathetic to both neighbours and the neighbourhood.

  24. Col and Lyn Walter commented

    We wish to voice our strong objection to the proposal to pack over 200 cheap homes onto a small site that adjoins and will share roadways with Tallwoods Village.

    The development is totally inappropriate.It will destroy the amenity of the village and impact badly upon road infrastructure that was not designed for such volumes of traffic that the development will generate,endangering children catching school buses and other motorists and residents.

    Council has previously rejected a similar application stating that it was not in the public interest on the basis of
    . negative impact on water and sewerage infrastructure,unsatisfactory asset protection zone,inequitable increased financial burden on ratepayers,insufficient local infrastructure,inadequate provision for koala movement,impact on visual amenity and lack of fire prevention measures and emergency evacuation.

    These are surely valid grounds upon which to reject this latest application

    Councillors should be aware that over time,people have paid a premium to purchase land or a house in Tallwoods.They did so believing that the high prices were warranted because of the peace of mind offered by the village's peaceful setting,low density housing,low crime rate and the community spirit of residents.Indeed ,the original developers put covenants in place to re-enforce these expectations.

    Purchasers realised that there was virtually no public transport and the village was far distant from medical , dental,emergency and shopping facilities.They have lived with these short-comings ,compensated by the natural attributes that make Tallwoods Village what it is and have expended a great deal in cash and effort to nurture their piece of paradise.

    We ask that Council reject the application and take steps to ensure that the loop-hole that attracts developers to submit applications for developments such as that which is now before Council is closed

  25. David Frith commented

    To whom it may concern.

    I lend my support to the majority of submissions above, in particular that of Mr Atkinson. The development is completely at odds with the Tallwoods Village and the larger Hallidays Point community and can only degrade what is already here and established. There are genuine traffic and parking concerns with the access from Coastal View drive and at the bottom of a steep hill. The overflow for parking would create greater risk. There is no guarantee that the development will be taken up by retirees or similar there is potential for rentals by crisis or unemployed persons with the resultant increase in crime etc. The location has virtually no public transport or close access to cheaper supermarkets, pharmacies, surgeries etc that are available in Taree or Forster. Other than a developer making a quick buck there is no benefit to this development to the local populace. There is no shortage of suitable land close to the major centres and there are already similar developments that will not ruin their character as it would Tallwoods.

  26. Brian Mitchell commented

    This latest DA application by (Gateway) seems to defy all logic - it was rejected outright by Council in November 2017, reached the Land and Environment court in April, 2018, and was then 'pulled' by the Applicant.

    Why lodge an almost identical DA application less than 6 months later, with the same council and with virtually nothing changed that would justify a different outcome (ie a DA approval) ?

    But, there has been a major change recently for Gateway .........................they (Gateway) received several takeover offers culminating in a takeover acceptance by the Gateway Board. Hometown Australia P/L (a fully owned subsidiary of Hometown USA) will be the proud new owners of this Australian (soon to be American) company in the near future.

    Does'nt it make good business sense to have another 'greenfield' site approved to 'sweeten' the takeover in the eyes of the new owner (Homwetown) ??

    ...................Just saying !?

    Needless to say I TOTALLY disapprove of this proposal and will fiercely oppose it with the very many others from our area

  27. L and Peter Ridgewell commented

    I cannot see any difference to the previous application other than its entry from blackhead road to the application that was rejected by council last year. The type of buildings are not in keeping with the residential buildings that are approved in the Tallwoods estate. As much as I am for more infrastructure this application is not up to standard.

  28. April & Graham Robertson commented

    We agree with many of the objections already raised and I cannot see any difference to the previous application.
    *The development is out of scale and character with this area
    * Lack of transport and infrastructure.....!
    * Huge concerns about the economic and social impacts - loss of property values, traffic, the effects on residents’ peace of mind, privacy and increased crime in the area.
    We ask that Council reject the application as council has previously rejected a similar application stating that it was not in the public interest !!!!!

    Thank you for considering our submission

  29. Gillian Miles commented

    The last DA application was refused on 7 points as follows:

    Negative effect on water and sewer infrastructure - this has not changed
    The proposed Asset Protection Zone on land to be dedicated to council for the benefit of private interest - this has not changed
    Inequitable increased financial burden on existing rate payers - this has not changed
    Insufficient local infrastructure - this has not changed.
    Inadequate provisions for koala movement - this has not changed
    Impacts on visual amenity - this has not changed
    Impact on lack of fire prevention measures and emergency evacuation of the elderly - this has not changed.

    As none of the above 7 points have changed this latest proposal is still not in the public interest and the application surely still fails to satisfy the requirements of Section 79C1.

    Therefore as a resident of Tallwoods Village I strongly oppose this application and ask council to seriously consider the outcome if they allow this development to proceed.

    In addition I am seriously concerned on the negative impact this development will have on property values in Tallwoods and surrounding areas.

  30. Dick Miles commented

    As a resident of Tallwoods Village, I, along with many other local residents, strongly oppose this development as follows:

    303 Black Head Road – Manufactured Homes Estate (99/2019/DA)
    This is unbelievably an almost photocopy application for the same 202 Manufactured Homes in a closed gated community within Tallwoods Village, which council rejected last year for 7 official reasons.
    I object to this DA on the following grounds:
    It is not a suitable development for an infrastructure poor community.
    Negative effect on water & sewer
    Inequitable financial burden on existing rate payers resulting from additional impact of infrastructure of this DA.
    The DA shows inadequate car parking and the current exit will cause excessive burden on traffic, especially during holiday seasons.
    Not in keeping with Tallwoods Village. Negative impact on property values.
    Establishing the proposed Asset Protection Zone on land to be dedicated to council for the benefit of a private, profit driven interest is not satisfactory.

    See what other rate payers have had to say:
    https://www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/1067306 and
    https://tw303action.wixsite.com/twaction

  31. Barbara and Jacob Van Der Meer commented

    As residents of TALLWOODS VILLAGE strongly oppose the Development as follows. 303 BLACKHEAD RD, Manafactured homes Estate. 99/2019/DA. in a Closed Gate Community. Last year Council rejected this Manafactured Home Estate for certain reasons that it was unsuitable,so the question?WHAT HAS CHANGED? Local residents are not happy causing stress for so many.It was rejected.It is not in the residents intrest of Tallwoods Village and surrounds to have Manufactured homes in this lovely sought after area which has beautiful Architectural homes specifically designed with lovely landscaped gardens.We wish for friendly Community to remain this way instead of being cluttered.We don't want clustered homes in our view and overloading our beautiful entry into Tallwood Village.We will be forced in a lower standard which is not what we bought into with it's beautiful scenery.We did not buy into Tallwoods village to see it lose its sought after identity.Has Council considered planning of transport for so many extra elderly residents?The other question being,,will it always remain an over 50's? or something else? A high density Manufactured home site does not suit.What will happen to the value of our homes? When we moved here we never imagined Council would even consider allowing this to happen ,.Almost 12mths ago we had major flooding at Tallwoods Village entry it was swamped with stench of sewer,we could hardly exit the village,there were emergency workmen trying to assist the traffic hold up,also in Blackhead.The entry into the manufactured site from Coastal View Dr,appears to be a bad idea as,on the downhill side there are concerns of traffic collisions with heavy trucks which has doubled in the last 2yrs.The entry and exit of Tallwoods is close to where the bus stop is situated for school children and the manufactured site will increase the truck volume also.Might I mention the intersection of Blackhead rd,into Tallwoods, which is incomplete.It has bits and pieces all over the road laying about and dangerous.When will it be completed?The other intersection from Blackhead to Taree has had numerous accidents there in the last 2yrs it is very dangerous. Another concern is we do live in a beautiful place and we all love a special place which includes the Flora and Fauna of nature,we hope to save and preserve it.,for the future,.

  32. Mark and Janice Hicks commented

    The new DA proposal adds nothing to the previously rejected MHE concept.

    Of prime concern is the issue of traffic flow and density which is already heavy along Coastal View Drive; has become even more dangerous with the construction of up to thirty houses in the area and will become a real deathtrap if up to 200 vehicles are forced to enter and exit further down the road at the bottom of the hill which is already a blind spot in both directions.

    The proposed MHE is completely unsuitable for the Tallwoods community.

    Increased crime is a certainty and will not be addressed in a timely manner by Police officers from as far away as Taree or Forster; bus services are almost nil and parking around the MHE and bus stop will add even greater congestion and chaos to the lower end of Coastal View Drive.

    The MHE concept for Tallwoods is fraught with concerns in many areas and will be firmly rejected by many residents who vote--Midcoast Council should reject the DA too!

  33. Noeleen & Colin Rooney commented

    We along with all previous comments object to this "new" Manufactured home development. This is not the place for such a development, Tallwoods is already a beautiful stand alone suburb with high standards of buildings required in its original development, that's what has drawn us all to live here, how is it possible that this development can even be considered AGAIN !
    I hope that council does what it is in office for and that is to work for its community for the community it represents and rejects this re hashed application.

  34. Graham Wood commented

    I strongly disagree with this development as will look like a slum at the entrance to Tallwoods village . you cannot even get a good caravan for the price that the developer is proposing ( $5,000,000 for Development of land and supply 202 Manufactured Homes that works out at less than $25,000 per home ( or Shed ) are they try to pull the wool over the councils eyes as to cost so they pay less in development fees.

  35. David Brett commented

    I agree with the opposing sentiments already expressed by others here. This DA is outrageous and the council should reject it immediately.

  36. Felicia Lieberman commented

    I am interested in the extent of social impact the proposed MHE development will have on Tallwoods Village and the wider Hallidays Point community. It is disappointing that a DA can be made with attached studies that do not present definitive outcomes and specific examples of impacts of the proposed development.

    In the social impact study, it is written that 'it is reasonable to suggest that the overall impacts will be positive.' This does not guarantee this outcome, and it seems to imply that there may be some negative effects.What exactly makes an overall impact positive?

    In addition, there is no comment in the study regarding whether or not the MHE development will enhance or detract cultural heritage or cultural life. Certainly this is an aspect to be considered and reported on.

    It is also reported, under the category of health impacts that there will be the development of 'some on site facilities'. A pool, recreational areas etc. in the MHE site will only impact on the health of those particular residents, not the wider community.

    Also, it is written that the wider community is 'likely to benefit from a gradual increase in local services.' It seems dubious as to what these services might be as there are no examples of these and something that is likely to happen will not necessarily happen.

    Lastly, it is reported that the community 'will initially notice increased traffic and noise which will dissipate over time.' I question how an increase of 202 homes with at least 1 resident in each will result in a dissipation of increased traffic and noise over time.

    Overall, I think that there needs to be further investigation into specific examples of the social impact this development will have on existing residents. It is my opinion that time be taken to conduct these investigations and also that time be devoted to allow the State government to revise the policy regarding the MHE developments in this area.

  37. John Williams commented

    My concerns with this re-submitted Development Application are:
    • The Social Impact Statement (SIA) supporting this proposal is based on the erroneous notion that Tallwoods’ profile is similar to the profile of an area that includes Old Bar, Manning Pt and Red Head. Availability of Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data sets does not justify this laziness, inaccuracy and dishonesty. It renders the related conclusions about age, income, housing, qualifications, communication, crime rates, employment and the cultural impacts of this development on Tallwoods as just bald and unsupported assertions.
    • There has been no attempt to directly gauge the costs, benefits and impacts of this development on the Tallwoods community by Joint Venture Pty Ltd, the developer or RPS Australia East Pty Ltd and Council should exercise caution in unquestioningly accepting and regurgitating the conclusions and statements from the developer’s SIA (who pays the piper calls the tune) when considering this development application. Joint Venture Pty Ltd are property speculators. There is no altruism in their wish to provide affordable housing; this is simply a commercial intrusion into our community. If this application is given approval then the developer will make a profit, some Blackhead businesses will increase turnover and people who choose to live on the proposed manufactured home estate will make informed decisions about their accommodation arrangements. This leaves the third group, the current residents of Tallwoods, with no benefits, no say and a significant reduction in the quality of the amenity Tallwoods currently provides. Developing this estate slowly (in stages) will not eliminate its social inappropriateness, its visual impact, its long term unfunded liability or its inevitable impact on real estate prices and clearance rates. Distributional Equity and Precautionary Principle are the fundamental issues that underlie the communities’ objections to this development. Distributional equity skewed against the existing community of residents will be the result if this development goes ahead.
    • The SIA does not canvas any serious consideration of, and summarily dismisses, the negative impacts of this development. Increasing demand for doctors, public transport and local services does not magically provide for these needs. Bulahdelah for example was without a local GP for an extended period and relied heavily on visiting GPs from Nabiac and Newcastle on a casual basis. Bulahdelah’s local hospital was empty for over 12 months as a consequence of this absolute shortage. Local GPs are in high demand and many have closed their books to new patients, so an additional 200-400 aged or low SES residents with complex or compromised health needs will certainly swamp existing services.
    • This low cost development at the entrance to Tallwoods’ estate will negatively affect property prices for the rest of the estate. When I purchased my home, which overlooks the proposed development site, I paid a premium for its location in the Tallwoods’ estate, for the views it afforded, for the low density development and for the beauty and amenity of its natural environment. The location of the proposed development will compromise all of these things for me and many others. It’s part of the personal cost I will bear if this development is approve and will be realised if and when I try to sell my home.
    • I question whether establishing MHEs is a long term solution to the provision of affordable housing. In the late 60s and early 70s this style of social engineering, albeit on a larger scale, resulted in places like Green Valley and Mt Druitt. 40 years on these places remain as heavily stratified communities of ‘have nots’ expressing high levels of intergenerational unemployment, poor educational outcomes, high crime rates, domestic violence and alcohol and drug abuse. State governments have in recent times recognised the risk of concentrating low cost housing and have interspersed affordable housing stock throughout existing communities.
    • 202 MHE’s would quickly change the character of Tallwoods and represent a grossly disproportionate number of low cost homes in the Tallwoods’ locale. Council Approval of this development, in its proposed location, would grossly disrespect the commitment, investment and pride shown by the current Tallwoods residents in the appearance of their homes and the Tallwoods’ environment.
    • Based on the available information in this DA, while benefitting from the relative prestige of Tallwoods’ estate, Joint Venture Pty Ltd are not proposing a development comparable with the quality of homes in the rest of the estate. The style of building proposed is markedly different from the rest of the Tallwoods estate and while euphemistically called a Manufactured Home Estate is really nothing more than a trailer park.
    • A high density development (202 homes on a 10.12 ha block) is inconsistent with the minimum block sizes throughout the Tallwoods Estate. An obvious consequence of this will be to overload existing water and sewerage infrastructure and increase traffic loads on The Boulevarde, Coastal View Drive, Blackhead Road and Lakes Way. The ongoing cost of improving infrastructure will be borne, disproportionately by the existing community of rate payers. The developer and the residents of the MHE will not proportionally fund any enhancements required.
    • Cynically, I suspect that the developer wishes to benefit from the implication that this will be an over 55’s estate without needing to assume the responsibilities to design and provide the infrastructure an over 55’s estate would require. The findings of traffic survey undertaken by Transport and Traffic Associates is predicated on the proposed development being established for an over 55’s community. There is ambiguity around the target clientele for this development, therefore, traffic movement rates used for calculations and conclusions are questionable. It’s unclear when the survey was conducted. Has it conveniently avoided the holiday peak period and therefore understates the traffic management challenges this proposal, in its present form, creates? Traffic from 202 dwellings, a large itinerant holiday population and traffic from the soon to be completed caravan park opposite the Boulevarde make this area an extremely complex management issue. The survey also inexplicably missed the daily stream of heavy vehicles associated with construction across the estate that includes, low loaders, cranes, semitrailers, concrete mixers and tradesman’s vehicles that all use Coastal View Drive to enter and exit the estate. The future traffic from this development, if approved, should not be channelled back into the Tallwoods estate. The proposed entrance to this development onto Coastal View Drive is at the base of a steep hill and will further concentrate traffic flow along The Boulevarde, Tallwoods’ main thoroughfare.
    I thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this proposal and I ask Council to make a fair and consistent judgement regarding this Development Application. It is not the best thing for our community. It has generated a great deal of anxiety for individuals and has united the community in its objections to this proposal.

    It now requires Council to exercise a degree of wisdom and courage and to again decline this DA and not be risk averse to the prospect of an appeal to the Land and Environment Court. It is important for Council to resist attempts by State Governments to centralise and control planning outcomes, to the detriment of local residents, through its Department of Planning and Environment.

  38. Jonathan Forrest commented

    I strongly object to Development Application No.99/2019DA, to pack over 202 cheap, demountable homes onto Lot 303 Blackhead Road, Hallidays Point.

    The development is totally inappropriate and is not inkeeping with this area in any way. It will destroy the amenity of beautiful Tallwoods Village. Our road infrastructure was not designed for the volumes of traffic this development will generate. This will put children catching the school buses at the entrance to Tallwoods Village, and also put other motorists and people walking around the village, in danger.

    Council has previously rejected an almost identical Development Application stating that it was not in the public interest on the basis of:-

    * negative impact on water and sewerage infrastructure
    * unsatisfactory asset protection zone
    * inequitable increased financial burden on ratepayers
    * insufficient local infrastructure
    * inadequate provision for koala movement
    * impact on visual amenity and lack of fire prevention measures and emergency evacuation.
    * extreme over-development and over-concentration of undesirable dwellings

    These are surely still valid grounds upon which to reject this latest application.
    When we purchased our first block of land in Tallwoods Village 11+ years ago we did so paying a high price as we were attracted by the low crime rate and the peaceful and beautifully natural amenity of the area. For these reasons we choose Tallwoods Village to live in to start our family. This ‘development’ will spoil the amenity of the area for all residents of Tallwoods Village.

    Tallwoods Village Covenant/quality of housing - Tallwoods Village is also covered by a Covenant that ensures (so we thought) that only quality houses are built and with this in mind we were led to believe that our substantial financial outlay for our home would be safe.

    Higher density development - The 2 previous areas of higher (medium) density development within Tallwoods Village (fronting the Boulevard and Hilltop Parkway) have been developed in such a way to fit in with surrounding high quality dwellings and with the general amenity of the area – bricks and mortar high quality permanent construction. Aspects severely lacking in the proposed development.

    Devaluing of Properties - This development, without doubt, will devalue the properties within Tallwoods Village.

    Public Transport/Essential Services - Tallwoods Village has extremely limited public transport, and is situated a long drive from doctors, dental and more importantly a hospital. When we purchased in Tallwoods Village we took this into consideration and decided to pay the premium price to live in this beautiful safe village.

    Crime and Safety - It is a fact that these kind of developments have a massive impact on the crime rate of an area and the safety of the residents in its surrounding area.

    Rates - the amount of rates this development would contribute is not in any way commensurate with the effect it will have on local infrastructure ie, roads etc. This is not just taking into account an average of 1 and most often 2 vehicles per dwelling but also the heavy vehicle movements require for the transport of the prefabricated dwellings and all of the associated vehicles etc cement trucks, semi trailers, gravel trucks, cranes etc.

    I ask that our elected members of Council reject the application and take steps to ensure that the loop-hole that attracts developers to submit applications such as these is closed immediately so no other community has to endure the anxiety and turmoil that this Development Application has presented to Tallwoods Village Residents.

    This development DOES NOT fit into Tallwoods Village - it is totally out of character. Demountable/prefabricated dwellings DO NOT have a place in Tallwoods Village. The development proposes a total over-development of the site.

  39. B Stewart commented

    Gateway Lifestyle at Red Head

    Are you all aware that the caravan park at Red Head has now been taken over by Gateway Lifestyle? Please see the following link: https://gatewaylifestyle.com.au/community/beachfront

    Stage 1: Approximately 78 houses with varying block sizes.

    They obviously off loaded the Tallwood's development as it was too hard and somehow have taken over the caravan park! There is no DA, etc with council for this development and the changes.

    Can anyone explain this as I don't know the history of this area or know much about the ownership of the caravan park; the zoning, if it was sold to Gateway Lifestyle and when, and why they are allowed change the use without council permission ??

  40. M & T Lee commented

    Totally object to this development - Tallwoods is a beautiful, peaceful place which has amazing Australian wildlife in it and surrounding it, one of which is our koalas. This development is just not suited to this area and should be stopped. We do not want another 202 cabins at our doorstep.

  41. Ian Tomes commented

    Dear Sir / Madam
    The last DA application was refused on 7 points in 2017,
    Negative effect on water and sewer infrastructure has not changed.
    The Proposed Asset Protection Zone on land has not changed.
    Equitable increased financial burden on existing Rate payers has not changed.
    The evacuation of the elderly in an Emergency has not changed..
    None of the above has changed in the Public Interest and still fails to satisfy the requirements of SECTION 79C1
    Also Tallwoods property values will suffer if this Development is approved.
    We as residents of Tallwoods strongly oppose this application.

  42. Bob Bray commented

    Bob Bray, Tallwoods Village
    We too object to this "Dolly the sheep, clone application" which seems to be exactly the same as the previous application which Council REJECTED. It appears that this U.S. company should be in the sardine manufacturing business instead with the motto,
    ...."We can squeeze more into a can than you!"
    I could be wrong here, but If there is to be 202 app. homes built in a closed gated community, with no direct access to Blackhead Road, except a locked emergency bushfire exit, this of course means there will be a huge traffic movement through the Tallwoods Village entrance.
    As most couples especially who live in Tallwoods have two motor vehicles then at a rough mathematical guess....202 homes X 2=404 as the norm possibly means an extra 'pick a number' extra vehicles using the Village's internal roads?
    Then there are the 'relos' who visit our beautiful area over the holiday periods during the year plus long weekends etc. If the closed community has off street parking for the relatives only..........where do these visitors park?
    In the original application we were told at the then Gateway proposed developers meetings that there were an allowance for 25 vehicles parking OUTSIDE the gated premises.........yes 25!

    Does that mean that even if only half the residents family visit over these times, that could be an extra 100 odd cars parked on the outside of this gated community on the surrounding street, or streets, as I imagine all of the internal parking spaces would be full.
    The congestion will be horrendous in our local area,
    (not forgetting the horse friendly caravan complex across the road from Tallwoods using there funded roundabout at the entrance to Blackhead Road as well).

    I would dare to say if the residents of Tallwoods wished to live in an over developed area/environment like this, than they would have built, retired, or moved in to Surry Hills, Pyrmont, Ultimo, or even into Sydney city itself to live this ' in your face 24/7' type of lifestyle.

    What amenities are available for people here, bus transport, Blackhead Road footpaths, even bicycle paths.....no none, or irregular bus services to Forster & Taree at this time.?
    Is it a case similar to the Kevin Costner movie 'Field of Dreams' when it was stated in the movie.............."Build it & they will come" (the Services that is)
    As well the closest petrol station to Tallwoods Village is at Rainbow Flat!

    Is this beginning of the "ol' one, two?" if this is approved the other company wishing to develope the land at the bottom of The Pulpit is sitting there observing all this, so as to go in on this American companies coat tails if their application is approved, just a question?
    It is up to the Council to AGAIN REJECT this inappropriate development application, because if it is approved
    ................. lookout, Hallidays Point, Blackhead, Redhead, Diamond Beach & all places south of Forster.

  43. Peter Quinlivan commented

    In supporting the generality of the arguments objecting to the development application upon 303 Blackhead Road - Manufactured Homes Estate. 99/2019/DA; I do so having regard to Council’s responsibility to assess the application cognizant of optimum planning outcomes and the balanced interests of all stakeholders. It is fact that the basis of rejection of the prior application has ongoing validity (which of itself might negate any prospect of approval of the moderately revised current application); however, it is also fact that the applicant has recourse to the Land & Environment Court. More critically, it has the funding resources that “could”, with the effluxion of time, see the Court make a determination that delivers a compromise development. Whether stakeholders view a compromise as a “win win” or a “loose loose” situation is largely irrelevant , as the costs, angst and energy expended during a protracted campaign will be overwhelming to those of us that have an emotional imperative, compared to a developer that is largely commercially motivated and able to pursue a strategy with relative aloofness.

    Gateway Lifestyle is a brand that is 100% owned by the Hometown America Group (having recently acquired the Australian business for approx. $700 million). Their aim (like that of any Real Estate Corporation) is to optimize the value of their assets. This is achieved by selling prefabricated homes (a profitable enterprise as the company is vertically integrated and profits from the manufacture and profits from the sale of each home); recurrent income via ground rent/management fees ($200 per week for 200 homes equates to a weekly cash flow of $40,000.00) - with the combination of income growth and capital growth delivering an attractive Internal Rate of Return (IRR). It is incumbent upon Council to understand that the development is focused primarily on a lucrative commercial business strategy; affordable aged living facilities is simply a means to an end.

    Suffice to say, the proposed development intensity is at the core of my objection. I cannot proffer as a legitimate objection the likelihood that the development will attract a socioeconomic clientele at odds with the Tallwoods Village status quo. Indeed, diversity is welcome and healthy. However, in advocating diversity for Tallwoods Village generally, this must not be at the expense of ignoring diversity's benefits upon the subject land. Put simply, the proposal is in essence a caravan park type development on steroids and has appeal to a niche demographic. While that niche market may add to Tallwoods Village, a modest niche should not be a full scale ghetto, and this is best achieved via appropriate density management which limits the number of dwellings, the implementation of robust management requirements, and incorporates a landscaping and layout regime that integrates with the broader village to which it can be a part. Not an inferior second rate adjunct to be scorned.

  44. Cherilyn & Richard Leckner commented

    As residents of Tallwoods for 18 years we absolutely love the ambience of the Village and the whole of Hallidays Point. The current Application lodge with Council is almost identical to the previous one except that (we have been informed) some other company is trying to "bring down" our piece of paradise..

    We concur with all the reasons given by previous objectors, the road and the problems that would be encountered should there be a fire (only one way in and out), the traffic, lack of public transport, no permanent doctor, etc. the inadequacy of Taree Hospital (only public hospital in case of emergency), no service station which would be preferred by many to the proposed MHE.

    There is so much construction taking place at Tallwoods and the whole of Hallidays Point it is clear that people are coming to the area because of its beauty and wonderful community spirit , young people realising the advantages of bringing up their families here, others building their dream homes for their retirement it is obvious in speaking to locals that this type of overcrowded low socio economic development whether it be for over 55s or everyone is not wanted or warranted. The occupants of the new private homes are already adding to the flow of traffic without the addition of 202, no doubt many more, cars causing congestion at the Tallwooods roundabout for one. We have one already at Red Head and that is enough.

    Council please stand up against this development and give the residents of Tallwoods and Hallidays Point (your ratepayers) peace of mind. We do not want our "hidden gems" ruined!!!!

  45. Jan Mooney commented

    I would like to add my objection to this new development at Tallwoods. I’ve read previous comments and agree with those already expressed. Tallwoods is a beautiful golf course estate with quality homes and spacious gardens.

  46. Colin Lynch commented

    I object to the MHE proposed for this site
    The resident of Tallwoods Village should not have this high density development thrust upon them at the entrance to their peaceful village. Should it go ahead, the massive blot on the landscape will be there forever.

  47. Erin Coulson commented

    Hi,
    I own 7 the Bridle Path, Tallwoods which is directly impacted by this submission. currently drawing plans for the block, i have no problem with the development - only with the size and quality. I have had to allocate an additional budget to cover the requirements of Talwoods to meet a certain quality . So - wy directly over the fence can these homes be built?

    it's a NO from me.

  48. Leonard Lawrence Hagan & Joan Yvonne Hagan commented

    We have read the proposal and make the following comments:
    Zoning RE 1
    The proposal does not allow public access as it is to be signed “private property” at all points of access. Essentially it is designed as a gated community. It will not comply with the zoning objectives.
    The zoning objectives require the proposed land use to be open public space. The residential development is further required to provide a range of recreation settings and activities with compatible land uses. As a MHE catering to the older demographic (although not advertised as over 50s), there is unlikely to be any range of activities or cultural uses demanded.
    The dedication to Council of some land set aside for recreation cannot achieve the objective either as it puts the onus back on to Council to develop and maintain the land, i9ncluding parking for the wider community. The proposed development in its location is also unlikely to appeal to outside recreation users. Tallwoods Village already has a golf course appealing to its residential users and its access is open to the general public. The existence of two developments so close by (i.e. the adjacent caravan park as well) is likely to confuse the public and negatively impact the existing recreation area and its club facilities. Any recreation area in the gated MHE community is likely to provide private benefit to that closed community rather than a public benefit to the wider community (who are essentially not invited).
    As a staged development, there is also no assurance it will proceed as designed.
    The Hallidays Point Development Strategy adopted by Council in June 2000 set as basic principles:
    1 Maintain physical separation of each village
    2 Provide spatial limits
    3 Appropriate land uses in the areas between villages

    That Strategy proposed the development site be released for urban use but compatible with and as part of Tallwoods Village. If Council approves the development application it will be contradicting its own strategy.
    SEPP 36
    The MHE must be situated only in suitable locations and not on land having important resources such as scenic landscapes and ecologically valuable qualities. The current mix of the village of larger tree landscaped blocks with operating wildlife corridors will be disturbed. The MHE will contrast markedly with that existing development. As a high density residential area of narrow streets with minimal separations (no wildlife corridors), it will detract and with it and itself fall short of its own appeal. Over the road is an uncertain development – a caravan park – yet to be finished that is already asking questions of compatibility. Council rightly rejected that original proposal for an MHE.
    There are better locations. The development needs to be sited in suitable areas. If required in the local Council area at all, it should be away from existing developed residential sites, particularly of the Tallwoods Village style. If sited west of the Pacific Highway on less expensive land, it is more likely to be more viable, less intrusive and less conflicted.
    Further Issues
    There will be associated infrastructure issues with such a dense land use such as water and sewerage on the low level near existing roads. There will be a rating impact. The area may not be officially flood prone. However, it does flood and is swampy as indicated by the numerous water fowl in the vicinity.
    There will be issues of fire, police and emergency access. There will be traffic flow issues with an inundation of the Boulevard and Blackhead Road intersection already affected by the roundabout (still to be completed).
    There will be an increased demand for services and there are few nearby medical services and facilities. There is no dental service. There is no service station. There is no local police surveillance and probably no real need given the established community which currently enjoys a low crime rate.
    There is likely to be a negative effect on wildlife as already indicated. That wildlife not only enjoys the wildlife corridors offered between residences but also that offered by the golf course where visiting fauna is often seen (e.g. parrots, cranes, wild ducks, water hens, koalas, wallabies, kangaroos).
    The incompatibility of development will cause issues for existing residences. MHEs and caravan parks attract lower socio-economic groups and itinerants. Whilst accommodation is indeed required for those groups, it must be suitable for them as well as their neighbours. By putting opposites together, there is the potential for conflict.
    Affordable housing will clash with the established housing character and style. It may well impact on future growth of the still developing village. According to the 2016 National Population Census, 85.9% of the existing homes in the Tallwoods Village are free standing on large blocks compared to the 66.4% national average. The vast majority have three or more bedrooms (93.4%). The building covenants in Tallwoods are rendered useless by the relatively unfettered MHE minimal size lots and inferior building construction.
    The village atmosphere and entry to Tallwoods will be destroyed by the immediate location of the MHE. It will be visible from the main road. Together with the caravan park, it will have the effect of announcing Tallwoods Village and indeed Hallidays Point, Redhead and Blackhead villages, as a low socio-economic area, thereby deterring holiday makers and potential real estate buyers.
    The proposed on-site facilities will not benefit persons outside the complex. This affects the viability of those facilities especially in a staged development.
    It will be short-sighted planning if the MHE is approved in this location. Development should be a considered process and not a process dictated by a first-in, only present option, exercise. A longer term approach would preserve the character of Tallwoods Village and offers further consistent expansion of Tallwoods Village with mutually compatible residences and a potentially more valuable rate base. The marginal cost of services will be lower when development is allowed to naturally and incrementally build on existing roads and services.
    There will be stark contrasts in block sizes. It will be a confusing sub-division that asks more questions of Council’s planning processes than it will solve. There should be better options considered.
    Population Issues
    The 2016 National Population Census shows an average age of the 705 Tallwoods residents as 57, against the national average of 38. There is already an aged population. There is a recent trend towards younger working families moving into Tallwoods Village that should be encouraged. This trend is likely to be reversed by making the existing development unattractive to those younger residents.
    The 2016 National Population Census found that an average Australian household has two cars. In the MHE, this could translate to 400 vehicles not including boats, caravans and trailers, significantly impacting the existing streets and roundabouts. The MHE development allows parking for only one vehicle per household. The narrow streets of the MHE and the limited entry points will not assist.
    There is a lack of public transport and a marked shortage of services for the existing population, noting the likely needs of the MHE residents. Those existing services are already stretched and unlikely to increase significantly, given that the development is a staged one. Further, new businesses are unlikely to set up in the area given the lower economic viability of the proposed MHE residents.
    The 2016 National Population Census showed a population in the MidCoast region of 92,569 people with an average age of 51.3, and smaller family size of 2.2 people. The vast majority of households already had at least one spare bedroom (23,342), with a further 5,046 having sufficient bedrooms. Only 812 households stated they had insufficient bedrooms. Of the occupied private dwellings in Tallwoods, 93.3% had three or more dwellings. The Tallwoods average household size was 1.8 people, with 60.6% households having two or more cars. The MHE allows only one car space per lot.
    Research and projections show that population growth is limited in the MidCoast region so there is no need to create pockets of high density accommodation to meet any increase.
    If aged care is required in the Tallwoods village, a less congested and better quality facility is preferable.
    Environmental Impact
    The proposal has vague references throughout as to impacts. This is perhaps because the impacts it describes as "not significant" or "not expected to create adverse impacts" or "small increase" or "likely to be marginal", are subjective assessments. They offer no assurance. A promise to control erosion by "controls will be installed" is simple gainsay without substance.
    The assessment identifies two threatened species to be effected but then says "not likely to have significant effect". There is no species numbers indicated. There is no spatial impact or habitat assessment. Any decline in threatened species is of concern. The report is dismissive. How it concludes there will be "no significant clearing" for the densely populated MHE beggars belief.
    Likewise the traffic assessment "not expected to create any adverse impacts" requires that the Council trust the developer's opinion. However, Presuming an average of two persons per household, an increase of 202 households or 404 people to a traffic system currently accommodating 705 Tallwoods Village residents (according to the 2016 National Population Census) is an increase of well over 50%. The expectation would be significant and the assessment that the impact would not be "adverse" seems odd as it would hardly be positive.
    It does attempt to estimate flows as 61 trips in the morning and 61 trips in the evening. Again, this needs to be tested for Tallwoods rather than assumed. Given the lack of immediate facilities and leisure activities, trips are likely to be more frequent.
    Of noise impact, "some small increase in long term noise" is again vaguely suggested. This is said to be mitigated through a "comprehensive" landscaping program and "appropriate" boundary fencing. Assuming there will no planting of advanced trees, years will be required before any mitigation occurs. That is presumably what is meant by "long term". The boundary fencing asks more questions than it answers. To be truly noise blocking, the boundary fence would need to solid, and the impression given of the gated community is even more unappealing. It would also impact negatively on wildlife.
    The visual screening is also said to be covered by landscaping in the boundaries.
    Air quality impact is "not expected to be significant" with all exposed area to be restored, revegetated and landscaped. Again, with plantings of saplings and seedlings, the exposed areas may remain exposed for some time. Just as foresters suggest that for each tree cut a replacement sapling is planted, is no real solution when the forest itself is taken down.
    The socio-economic impact is said to be positive because housing stock of an affordable pricing point is provided. Ghettos also achieve cheap accommodation, but that is no justification for building them when there are better alternatives. Quality housing is to be preferred if there is the demand. The demand in the area supports the current quality of Tallwoods-type designs and construction materials. There is new building work in Tallwoods and it is of a consistent quality. That trend will cease once lower quality housing is introduced on its doorstep.
    There is an implied admission of an adverse impact on the existing sub-division, when it is promised that the "visual impact will be mitigated to some degree via landscaping along perimeters particularly the northern boundary at the interface with the existing residential precinct".
    As for crime prevention, again the vegetation along the boundaries is said to assist prevention. However it also offers opportunities. The "signage” at entry points into the site will be erected stating "private property" is hardly convincing either. Indeed, the signage is more likely to attract criminal activity.
    Future commitment
    Even with conditions, there is nothing to really ensure compliance with the objectives. The difficulty with MHE developments is that they have no potential alternative use should the economic demand fall short. As a staged development, it carries the risk of a minimal start without any future assurance, and once installed has no other alternative use( except perhaps as a caravan park opposite the one across the road). Thus the proposition "likely to be alternative development on the site at some stage if it is not used for the MHE" is perplexing. Once the MHE is installed, even by stages, it is hard to see any alternative use remaining for the balance of the land. If on the other hand the development application is refused, the developer's warning that there will be an alternative development sooner rather than later, is actually more inviting, as any other development (other than another caravan park) is likely to be better for the community and more closely meet the zoning objectives.
    In relation to promised recreation reserves and community facilities, these will of course depend on an economic threshold being met to justify the expense. In relation to the playing fields, this is likely to be a "Trojan horse" for Council, who will inevitably be called upon to develop, maintain and create usage at its expense. There are already a number of MidCoast Council projects that are yet to commence e.g. the water park at Tuncurry, to replace the popular but closed Tuncurry pool, numerous replacement rural bridges and so forth.
    Finally, we have read several of the submissions opposing the MHE development, and confirm that we are in agreement with the vast majority of those comments. We strongly oppose Council approval of the current Development Application.

  49. Donna Ball commented

    I would like to strongly object against the development proposed for 303 Blackhead Road, Hallidays Point. - Proposed Manufactured Home Estate (DA99/2019) for the following reasons.
    Firstly, the infrastructure at Hallidays Point is insufficient to support 200 homes on a small parcel of land.
    Parking will be a major problem and will spill out onto Coastal View Drive and surrounding roads. There is no pedestrian crossing for children who catch buses to and from school at The Boulevard. With so many more cars in the area this will be a major safety issue.
    Public transport is almost non existent, one bus per day to Forster and return to Hallidays Point, also taxis cost a fortune from Hallidays Point to surrounding areas.

    In the event of bush fires, escaping will be more hazardous as so many more cars will be trying to exit one escape route.
    I cannot believe that the Council would be willing to lose money on this proposed development, as each manufactured household does not have to pay rates.

    The proposed development will be a construction site for 10 years which will affect the communities daily life.
    Manufactured homes are not even inspected by the Council on completion, and may not be built to the correct standard like all other homes in Talllwoods Village.

    Koalas are a protected native animal in Australia and koalas live in this area, so they will lose their habitat.

    I am not against development at 303 Blackhead Road Hallidays Point, but it has to be an appropriate development for the area, NOT manufactured homes.

    I attended a meeting last year at the Council Chambers in Taree, where most Councillors voted against the Gateway application of manufactured homes and supported the wishes of the community. Nothing has changed, so why should this new proposed development application succeed.

    Finally, I can only hope that the Mayor and all the Councillors vote against this new proposed development application, as they are supposed to be acting on behalf of what the community wants in this area and it is NOT manufactured homes.

    Yours Sincerely,

    Donna Ball

  50. Alice & Ray Reisberger commented

    The arrogance of this development application, which is pretty much identical to the previous one, is beyond belief!!!

    We hope that all the Councillors who objected to the last application will do the same to this one. Let's keep our area beautiful and attract the right people and professionals to our region instead of allowing some greedy developer supported by a few narrow-minded officials to destroy the beauty and harmony of Tallwoods Village and its surrounding areas!

  51. Krunoslav & Julie Lovrak commented

    We are submitting our objection to the proposed manufactured home estate at 303 Black Head Road Tallwoods, Application No 99/2019/DA on the following grounds:
    - A high density manufactured home estate at this location does not fit in the environment of current large residential blocks estate at Tallwoods Village.
    - The lack of infrastructure does not support this large development on that site because there are no shops, public transport, hospitals, doctors and the roads are not developed and maintained to cope with extra traffic.
    - The possibility of having 400 extra cars, caravans and trailers will cause major problems with traffic and parking on surrounding streets.
    - We are planning to invest $800k on our new home at 16 Augusta Point, Tallwoods and do not want our investment to decrease in value due to this low affordability housing development.
    We strongly urge the Council to reject this development as it is totally unsuitable for this location.

  52. Saxon Williams commented

    PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - 1303 Black Head Road Tallwoods,

    For me, when I saw the plans I was agog. Has the developer looked around the area?

    So many beautiful detached homes on large blocks. So a project that shoves as many shoe boxes into one site as possible is just wrong and must not be entertained by Council.

    It is that simple.

    The roads within the estate are so narrow... why? So the developer can maximise their return. There is no thought about the beautiful area the community has built. Just build a slum, bag the money and run.

  53. Bill Kennedy commented

    I dont belive this is in the public interest to have such a large development.
    The current infrasture does not support it nor can the council support the increase load on the area.

  54. Mr Andrew Nash commented

    Good Evening Mid Coast Council,
    I am extremely bewildered, as to why these Corporations ( Matthew Wales for Joint Venture P/L ) still try and impose these Manufactured Home Estates ( MHE ) into an existing area, where there is minimal room or no subsequent room for additional dwellings. This is at least the third attempt for this proposed Estate of Manufactured Homes, directly adjacent to Tallwoods Village. I would like to strongly object to this proposed development as the current infrastructure would not be able to handle all of the additional cars on the nearby roads and also not to mention, the added pressure and additional Water and Sewerage Services in the Local Area. As I am writing this Email to you, there are already countless Individual Dwellings being constructed in and around the Land on the Tallwoods Village Golf Course Site. In conclusion, based on all of the above reasons, I would like to strongly object to the proposed New Dwellings at 303 Blackhead Road, Tallwoods Village, Hallidays Point, NSW, 2430.

  1. Have you made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee? You may need to disclose this.

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

  1. We never display your street address. Why do you need my address?

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts