66 Wattle Crescent, Glossodia, NSW

This application for a caravan Park had been rejected twice already.
The complete lack of support services and transport options within Glossodia in general, makes this proposal completely unworkable.
The need for residents to have their own vehicle just to access Windsor, North Richmond or Richmond means that any proposal will need to provide adequate parking onsite. Wattle Crescent could not support Street parking due to its width and steep edges.
Current households in Glossodia typically have more than one vehicle.
I doubt that the Caravan Park will address that need adequately, and will indicate that public transport is available.

Public transport is less than adequate to provide for a concentrated population in such a small village.

Access to services such as human services in Windsor, job interviews, employment agencies, would be quite restricted if attempting to utilise public transport, as one example of the challenges that would be faced by residents.

Further, I would suggest that, one the plans have actually been made available for viewing, I don't that the Caravan Park applicant will have put forward a detailed plan for dealing with sewerage waste from the site. The Sydney water installed pressured system had enough extra capability for 6 houses. The system was not built to cater for such a development. The Jacaranda Ponds development proposal had to agree to build their own treatment plant before consent was even configured. As this property backs on to a creek that feeds the Hawkesbury River that flows to the oyster leases downstream, potential pollution from this site would impact dramatically on a creek system that supports creatures such as platypus.

I disagree with this proposal and request that it be rejected for reasons I have indicated above.

We have resided in Glossodia since 1974 and have seen the area progress first with tar roads, then street lights and curb and guttering, town water and then eventually sewerage. Although most of these developments have improved the amenity of the area, we have noticed over the years of our residence that traffic density has increased dramatically. The increased traffic has meant that we now suffer from sometime lengthy delays getting across the Windsor or North Richmond bridges and we believe this will only get worse unless there is another bridge or an increase in the number of traffic lanes.
We are very concerned that the proposed "high density" development being proposed in wattle crescent will add substantially more traffic to an already very busy residential area. We presume that the proposed development would require many trees on the site to be removed and this will adversely impact on wildlife activity. We particularly fond of the local birdlife which utilise all of the bush in our area to live and breed.
In the past when we had septic pump out there were significant health issue with overflows from septic systems being commonplace during heavy rain. The sewerage system has removed this problem, but our understanding is that the proposed development in Wattle Crescent would need to utilise a pump out system given that the sewerage system was never designed to cater for a "high density" residential development. This would surely lead to problems in terms of increased frequency of heavy truck movements to cart the septic pump out on a roadway already suffering from increased traffic density. There may also be problems caused by overflow in times of heavy rain and this would result in pollution of the creek adjoining the property.

We are also aware that most people in Glossodia have their own vehicles to allow easy access to Windsor/Richmond and we are not sure that there would be sufficient room for adequate car parking in the proposed development. Many Glossodia homes have at least 2 or more vehicles.
If the proposed development is meant to cater for low cost residential dwellings, how can someone already struggling to afford housing afford the transport costs of travelling to Windsor/Richmond not to mention accessing employment which mostly is on the Windsor/Richmond side of the river.

We have attended meetings when this applicant previously tried to get approval for a much higher density development several years ago. We were very concerned about that proposal and are still very concerned that someone should be trying to impose a "high density" residential development in a relatively quiet rural hamlet like Glossodia.

We sincerely hope that this latest development proposal is rejected because it is entirely unsuitable for the Glossodia area.

John & Daphne Paul

As a long time resident of Glossodia (since 1973)I would like to take this opportunity to state my comments against the proposed “affordable” low cost dwelling park sited at 66 Wattle Crescent Glossodia.
As you may appreciate ,living in the area for more than 45 years one should have gained an insight into any issues that may be detrimental to high density growth in an area that is not suitable, I mention high density growth as the proposed new development would be added to the existing Glossodia Hamlet plus the new Jacaranda development which would put an excessive strain on the existing facilities.
Whilst there is always a need for low cost living one must consider many aspects that the potential new residents must contend with, for example:
• Is the proposed new site the most suitable in the proposed area or should it be sited on the other side of the Hawkesbury River where it would be closer to emergency needs such as hospitals, specialists and doctors, with the current volume of traffic there are times when the line of traffic to turn onto Windsor bridge may be 500m long and take well over 35 minutes to reach Windsor from Glossodia, this could prove fatal should there be an emergency in the area. This problem will be compounded with all the new areas being developed in the Karrajong area as so much traffic is now taking a short cut from Bells line of Road because of the traffic density in Richmond.
• Approximately 15 years ago there was a serious bushfire on the ridge behind the proposed new low cost development and Glossodia residents were advised that unless the fire changed its course Glossodia would be lost, lucky for us the fire changed it’s course and the area was saved, but if that change of direction had not happened we were advised that the whole of Wattle Crescent could have been in trouble, what if this event happens again with a park surrounded by forest.
• Wattle Crescent has no footpaths pedestrian routes are steep and quite narrow, totally unsuitable for people with limited transport and mobility issues.
• The Glossidia side of the Hawkesbury River has always suffered during the flood times, we have been cut off for anything up to a week, how will this impact on the new proposed inhabitants, how well will they survive if their electricity water and sewerage is cut off for a week or more?
On a personal note, I live in Glossodia because I enjoy the healthy tree laden area full of Australian wildlife, the area is home to so many varied species of birds that it would be a tragedy to unnecessarily destroy another small forest when there are so many suitable blocks of land, close to Windsor, that have already been stripped bare awaiting similar development.

Ray & Maree Vinton

HI Council
I would like to add my voice to those who have already written expressing concerns regarding the caravan park at 66 Wattle Cr. Glossodia.
I have several concerns regarding transport, lack of amenities and access to services.
People who may live in this type of housing often have limited access to a car often having to rely on public transport. There is no bus that goes past this property and they will need to walk to Golden Valley Dr - a substantial climb. If these residents have limited mobility this is not an option and a taxi may not be financially viable.

There are limited facilities in Glossodia. While there is a grocery store they have limited food especially fresh produce which is of questionable quality. For someone with limited mobility who can not access shops further away this is lack of choice is unacceptable.

People who live in these type of dwellings often need to access employment services, training/education, health and medical practitioners. None of these services are within a distance that can be easily accessed without a private vehicle which can place additional stress in the household.

This high density development is not in the best interests of the potential residents and should be rejected.

Monique Pryce