PlanningAlerts

4 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

1. To whom it may concern

   The layout and lot sizes do not provide a practical and efficient layout to meet their intended use.

   The submission notes that the 'proposed subdivision involves lots that will accommodate detached dwellings of a similar size and bulk to the surrounding development pattern'. This statement is incorrect. The proposed lots are much smaller than the surrounding residential properties and will result in a development that has a character entirely inconsistent with it's surroundings.

   The submission makes no note the existing state of Headland Road. Even a cursory inspection demonstrates that the road is failing under the current traffic loading, the proposed development will introduce many additional traffic movements to this already degraded infrastructure.

   The application states that 'there will be no change to the visual amenity of the site'. It is unclear how the application can make this statement when the purpose of the development is to subdivide to build 10 residential premises in a relatively small block of land. Clearly the intent of the application is to significantly change the visual amenity of the site, the applicant appears to be unreasonably delaying an assessment of this impact.

   The application has one short paragraph on flora and fauna. Yet it includes a statement about removal of a large established fig tree without assessment of the impacts of it's removal or an assessment of the fauna residing in it. The application makes no assessment of the native fauna that regularly reside on the property. Multiple vulnerable bird species (including the little lorikeet) and the annual dense population of Lamprydae that inhabit the site at the beginning of each spring.

   The proposal largely ignores the flow on impacts that will result should it be approved. The development of 10 dwellings will require significant bulk excavation given the grade of the property yet this is not addressed in the application.

   Similarly the subdivision will ultimately result in a large conversion of natural grass land to hardstand area. The impacts of this have not been assessed in the application but will undoubtedly result in a negative impact downstream on an already degraded and deficient stormwater system.

   The invasion of privacy of residents down hill from the subdivision have not been considered in the proposal, however these impacts will be significant and require investigation.

   Finally, there is no proper assessment of the impact on the adjacent E1 zoned land. This land contains vulnerable species and has indigenous significance. This impact needs to be assessed.

   Thankyou for considering these queries.

2. I totally agree with the above complainant Tanya. I have lived in Sapphire for over 20 years and it is a quiet peaceful community.
   The extra cars this would bring would be detrimental to this area- Headland Rd doesn’t even have a sealed road surface from kerb to kerb, only a narrow strip in the middle.
   The beauty of this part of the ‘older’ Sapphire is the larger block size. The houses are not crammed together. The new developments at North Sapphire are totally separate to the older part and should stay that way.
   To allow this development would destroy the peaceful nature of this part Sapphire.

3. It is not feasible to approve splitting that land into 5-10 blocks, meaning 5-10 families (with the possibility of two + cars each) before first considering the horrific state of the roads in this part of Sapphire. The road and gutters have significantly deteriorated in many sections of Headland Road and Elouera Drive without further worsening their state with this proposed significant increase in traffic to the area. What a shame it will be to see this quiet and peaceful part of Sapphire become overdeveloped and crowded.

4. I’d like to state my objection to the above development submission. This submission incorrectly states a number of impacts upon the surrounding community.

   The submission indicates that the surrounding public road access is well established due to the completion of Solitary Island and that stormwater services are adequate for the development. However it fails to address the current state of Headland Road, which is not fully sealed, has poor drainage and gutters in disrepair. This road is not capable accommodating the current daily vehicle movements and storm water requirements, let alone an increase in daily vehicle movements and storm water.

   The submission also indicates that the development will have no change to the visual enmity of the site. This is incorrect. A quick drive around the nearby streets of Sapphire or even a viewing on satellite imagery will demonstrate the low density housing of the suburb, the large lot sizes and the lack of visual bulks of building. The proposal does not reflect or respect the neighbourhood character at all.

   Finally the submission does not consider the impact the development will have upon the current residents of Sapphire. Residents will be impacted by the increase in noise, not only from the construction required to build the additional properties but also from the increased number of people and cars. Residents across the road and down the hill are impacted by the loss of privacy – especially if the dwellings are multi-storey. Residents across the road are also impact by the loss of view as the outlook drastically changing from a level of flora and fauna to a visual bulk of buildings. This in turn may impact the neighbours’ property values due to the decrease in privacy, loss of view and overdevelopment of the site.

   I hope will you consider these objections when discussing this development. It will be sad to see Sapphire lose its character.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Coffs Harbour City Council. They may consider your submission when they decide whether to approve this application. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment