45 Honeysett View, Kingston, ACT

I am extremely concerned that there is to be a 12 car public carpark directly in front of my new apartment. There appears to have been no consultation about this.
I assume this carpark is for people to use when they visit the tiny park which is yet to be created at the foreshore creek. Could it not be better placed at the Causeway end of Honeysett View where it will not upset any of the residents of Peninsula, Northshore, or any other residential development? There is a huge tract of land there which is currently unused.
Our view of the water and trees was our reason for selecting this particular apartment, and we did not envision staring at parked cars.
I urge you to please reconsider this carpark placement and consult with Northshore residents in particular.

I wish to lodge my strong objection to the location of the proposed public carpark on Honeysett View.

I understand public consultation on the Sapphire development highlighted concerns about parking- and the DA appears to have addressed this- without the need for a public carpark. The DA states ‘While not allocated to the development there is kerbside parking available on the northern verge of Honeysett View to the east of the site and a 10 space public carpark in the landscaped area immediately adjacent to the site (east side) which is available to the general public and not allocated to nearby unit developments as part of the visitor parking.’

As a local resident I have paid attention to on street parking and how it is used. Overwhelmingly car spaces are used by residents of the apartment buildings. When a complex is being built tradesmen use the carparks. Car spaces are readily available to the extent stolen/vandalised cars have been dumped in the area.
I realise a small park is proposed for Honeysett View but cannot see that it would attract car-driving visitors, or that additional public parking would be required, let alone a carpark on the foreshore itself.

Truly I cannot understand how, in 2018 an on-ground carpark directly on the foreshore is considered a good idea. I am sure environmental concerns could be addressed but nothing would mitigate the aesthetic nightmare.

I thank you in advance for taking time to further consider the need and location of the proposed carpark.

I strongly believe the location of the planned car park is shortsighted and should not occupy the site proposed. If a car park is considered necessary, then please look at moving it towards the end of Honeyset View on to vacant land to the adjacent to the Causeway. To my mind that’s a much more appropriate location for such a public facility. The proposed site is not suitable from an aesthetic perspective and will appear out of place. Please re-consider.

Further to my previous comment I also request a date for when the fencing of public open land will be removed. It would be much appreciated if the park area be finished prior to construction of Sapphire and not further delayed (ie be completed as the first phase of construction not the last phase).

Regarding access to the open public area I also request that the Sapphire construction shed NOT be placed on the public land to the east of the old rowing shed, but in front of the construction site itself (same as the shed at the Northshore complex which I understand was originally on public land and moved to the front of their building site because it was on public land and was viewed by residents as an obstruction of their view and disruption to their quiet enjoyment of what is a beautiful environment.

The people who enjoy the waterfront adjacent to the Sapphire complex and along the wetlands do not need a carpark. They are part of a larger community that value the simple pleasures of nature, of walking amongst the sounds and sights of unique protected wildlife and the quiet relief from traffic.
If the developers of Sapphire need extra parking then let them fund it.
What town planner thinks that building a car park at the water's edge of Lake Burley Griffin is a great idea? It sets a disasterous precedent.
Please do NOT build a carpark in this area.

I would appreciate your reconsideration of the plan to develop a car park directly on the foreshore at this site. Initial advice indicated that this area would maintain the parkland and green space. As many of the residents in our suburb are young families the preservation of green outdoor areas is crucial to quality of life. While it may seem trivial to some, variety and availability of green space is a crucial concern for many parents of young children and the impact of reducing these areas unnecessarily is significant.
Thank you for your consideration.

I also urge you to reconsider the development of a car park directly on the foreshore at this site. Resident's of the foreshore who appreciate the wetlands and wildlife will no longer be able to enjoy the serenity that the park brings. How can a car park take priority over the preservation of natures green outdoor areas? Thank you for your consideration.

We have recently moved into the Northshore apartments with the promise that nothing would be built in front of the complex and nothing would obstruct our view. Sapphire is going ahead which we have come to terms with, however, the car park is not required by Sapphire and can be relocated. For all of the reasons listed by concerned residents above, I urge you to reconsider this development. Many thanks.

Comment on Development Application: 201834502

I am writing to oppose the above referenced Development Application as it is non-compliant with:

height restrictions, and
parking and access requirements.

Height Restrictions

The Kingston Precinct Map and Code provides for a maximum of four storeys on the land subject to this Development Application.

While many of the buildings in the precinct have pop up elements - primarily penthouses - rising above the four storey limit these are constructed so as to have generous setbacks from the building footprint and are spaced apart from other popups. The overall visual effect is therefore that of a four storey building with one or more pop ups above the fourth storey. This provides a visually pleasing streetscape throughout much of the precinct.

The proposed construction has much less setback and spacing between popups. The popups dominate the building. The overall visual impression is a six storey monolithic construction, which will clash visually with the rest of the precinct. This is clearly evident in the promotional photographs on the development’s website and in the perspective views forming part of the Development Application.

Parking

As acknowledged in the Development Application, a total of 20 visitor car parks are required for the development.

The Development Application states that 22 units have allocated “private visitor space(s)”. It then proceeds on the basis that it is permissible to exclude those units from the calculation of the number of visitor spaces required. The requirement is then stated as being (78 - 22) / 4 = 14.

In my view:
the required number of visitor spaces remains at 20, and
the “private visitor space(s)” are properly excluded from that count.

The reason being that owners / occupiers of the larger units, several of which have four bedrooms, may well use all their allocated parking spaces (including the “private visitor space(s)”) as car parks for their own use. Visitors to those units would still require a visitors car park.

The Development Application also seeks to double count ten commercial car spaces on the grounds that they would be available out of normal business hours and on weekends. This seems to ignore the very real possibilities that visitors to residents may arrive during normal business hours and the commercial premises may operate on weekends. If such an approach is allowed it would make mandating car spaces for commercial operations in residential projects largely redundant.

Finally the suggestion that street parking or a car park to be constructed on adjacent public land be utilised for overflow visitor parking will only lead to congestion and environmental degradation in the area.

I am also opposed to the construction of a car park on adjacent public land on environmental grounds. It would be far better to landscape the whole area to provide a passive recreational facility in a medium to high density residential precinct. Providing a sealed car park adjacent to environmentally sensitive wetlands will increase the risk of run off and pollution after rain events.

I strongly object to the proposed car park to be built on what I thought was going to be parkland. One of the reasons I bought on the quiet side of Kingston was to enjoy the serenity and view across the wetlands. I want to see green, not concrete.

This is environmental pollution in my view and when I purchased in Northshore, I got the plans of the proposed park for reference and can’t believe this would be considered. There are lots of car parks on the streets around Kingston to service the foreshore and also within the buildings for owners / tenants and guests, so there is no need for further spots.

It is important to have nature at our doorstep and not disrupt the environment any further.

I wish to lodge an objection against the planned carpark on Honeysett view. To me, this does not seem to be an aesthetically or environmentally sound decision. I have noted the local bird life using this area for rearing of their chicks, feeding and resting. Surely a carpark and its flow off waste would disturb the wildlife.

Also, using a prime piece of land for a carpark seems silly considering the vast other areas available. Further more, as a resident of the area, I know that there is ample parking around the streets surrounding Sapphire which is primarily used by residents at night and tradesmen building the new constructions during the day. No guests use it while visiting the area for leisure.

There is absolutely no need for more parking. A park, as originally planned, would better serve the needs and wants of the community.

I object to the proposal to alienate some foreshore for additional car spaces. While a resident of the area, I am not affected by the proposal. However I believe it is extremely poor planning to alienate valuable and scarce foreshore for car parking. If there is a need for additional parking in the area -which has not been demonstrated- then please consider the alternatives, ie widening the Causeway for parking on both sides, or creating a carpark east of the Causeway on unused public land between Eyre and Dawes St.

I would also like to object to the positioning of the proposed visitor’s carpark on Honeysett View. It is ironic that this carpark is intended as an amenity for the yet to be constructed headland park but it will itself excise a significant portion of the park. There are clearly better alternatives providing equal access opportunity at the Eastern end of the proposed park

I am writing to object to the proposed development and building of a car park on the lakeside of Honeysett View for the following reasons:
ENVIRONMENTAL
The current space should be restored to its natural state as much as possible. The car park will have run off to the waterway during wet weather and from vehicles leaking oil/fuel, thereby destroying the quality of the waterways the bird life currently enjoys, and sustains and nurtures its young. We should be aiming to keep this national treasure as pristine as possible by keeping vehicles as far away as possible from the water’s edge. The Government should be ensuring MORE land is preserved as a park and sanctuary for bird and animal life NOT reducing it for a polluting car park, anywhere along the banks of the lake, wetlands and river.
AESTHETICS
The owners/residents of the Peninsula, Northshore and Azure dwellings purchased their properties because of the close proximity to the natural environs and the unobstructed views of the wetland and its resident bird and animal life. The proposed car park will detract from these existing views and, at night, some of the residents on the lower levels of these dwellings will have annoying car park lights and car head lights beaming directly into their apartments. Further, residents of these dwellings chose this precinct because of its access to the Foreshore restaurant strip, yet reasonable distance from noisy restaurant traffic on Eastlake Parade.
NO NEED FOR ADDITIONAL CAR PARKS
Around the areas of Honeysett View, Kerridge Street, Eyre Street, Dawes Street and the Causeway, there are adequate numbers of car parks already provided and which at most times during the day are not being used. So, the argument suggesting a car park is needed due to demand is a spurious one. It appears one of the reasons for the car park being developed is to take the overflow from the Sapphire development. It is not appropriate that public land be used to assist a private developer who should be making appropriate provision of car parks for residents and their visitors within the APPROVED building that’s being developed.

I object to the proposed development and building of a car park on the lakeside of Honeysett View for the following reasons:

Environmental
The current space should be restored to, and maintained in, its natural state as much as possible. The Government must ensure as much land as possible is preserved as park land.

Aesthetics
We, the residents of the Peninsula, Northshore and Azure dwellings specifically chose our properties to purchase and dwell in because of the close proximity to the beautiful Lake Burley Griffin and the unobstructed views of the wetland and its resident bird and animal life. We have chosen this precinct because it is the quiet side of the Kingston Foreshore. This car park will add noise pollution, light pollution and carbon monoxide pollution.

Additional car parks are not needed
There are copious preexisting car parks, accessible to the public, along Honeysett View, Kerridge Street, Eyre Street, Dawes Street and the Causeway, which for many hours during the day remain unoccupied.

Additional cars are not needed, nor should they be encouraged
The bicycle paths servicing Canberra facilitate and promote transportation via a sustainable environmentally-friendly mechanism. What is the public health and environmental policy evidence backing the accommodation of more polluting vehicles (cars/motorcycles/utility trucks) by building another public car park? We as citizens with the right to clean air, high living standards and the right to shape the environmental future for generations to come must be presented with all facts. Without this evidence, strong opposition will prevail.