142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290

Multiple dwelling housing, mixed use development, temporary stormwater management facility, and stra

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website over 5 years ago. It was received by them 1 day earlier.

(Source: Lake Macquarie City Council, reference DA-1774/2013)

292 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Lynden Jacobi commented

    My concerns are many.

    1. The area that is proposed for this development is an area that has long been used for playing ball with kids or dogs, flying kites and as an open space and as a thoroughfare to and from the Whitebridge shops from the suburb and the Fernleigh track. The proposal is for 87 residences crammed into this space with only a 10 – 20 metre edge along the lower side for grass & trees along the Fernleigh track. That area is inadequate space for the current locals let alone the extra people who will take up residence in the proposed 251 bedrooms.

    2. It has been long known that treed areas promote better physical & mental health yet it seems that every one of these houses has a tiny courtyard and no front yard and there seems to be no area for kerbside planting and there are no parks or open spaces except for a tiny area between two commercial properties. Street trees should be planted to reduce energy use and improve air quality. The whole plan of cramming people in like this is like a slum. Fencing it in to separate it from the rest of the community makes it even more like a slum. I am not against medium density housing in this area but it should be integrated into the community. 251 bedrooms in this space with no trees or garden or recreational space is outrageous. It smacks of developer greed.

    3. The intersection of Lonus Ave, Bulls Garden Road, Waran Road & Dudley Road already becomes incredibly congested (backing up to Station St on Dudley Road and back past Kopa Street along Lonus Ave at times). The proposal has all traffic entering and exiting from Kopa Street via Lonus Ave. Will there be provisions for the extra congestion that will be caused by the extra 87 dwellings?

    4. It has become obvious since the land has been fenced off that the original parking plan for the Whitebridge shops is inadequate. People are parking all the way up to the bridge. This will have to be remedied before new shops are added.

    5. The townhouses don't have adequate parking. On average, households in Australia with 2 bedrooms own 2 or more cars, 3 - 4 bedroom dwellings have 3 or more cars. This proposed development has 19 x 2 bedroom, 59 x 3 bedroom, 9 x 4 bedroom dwellings. That is a total of 251 bedrooms. The SNL representative suggested that their solution to possible parking problems would be for the council to turn the grassy area along Station Street into a parking lot! This would be totally unsuitable.

    5. It seems that no consideration for ecologically sustainable design has been taken into account. Surely dwellings should be aligned towards the winter sun for minimum need for heating & cooling not towards the west. I speak from experience having had 4 ill-designed units put in alongside our house at Hudson Street Whitebridge. They are aligned in exactly the way this new proposal has planned. The residents of the townhouses near us stand out shivering on the driveway in the mornings in winter to warm up and have their blinds drawn and air conditioners pumping right through summer. It is a crime to allow such developments in the age where we know about sustainable housing and energy efficiency.

    6. This area was zoned conservation until the council chose to rezone it in 2010 with no community consultation. It adjoins the green corridor of the Fernleigh track. Living in Hudson Street we have bandicoots, echidnas, ringtails, brushtails, bats, water dragons, frogs and a huge variety of birds. We often find damaged or dead native wildlife that have been killed by neighbours' cats & dogs. This problem will be much worse if we have another 87 residences' pets adding to the problem.

    This should be made a proper sustainable world class development not be turned into a slum because the owners want quick profits.

  2. R. Ashton commented

    There are several issues with this development.
    1. Traffic congestion. Traffic at the roundabout that joins Bullsgarden Rd, Dudley Rd, Lonus Ave & Waran Rd is already congested most of the day. At school drop off and pick up time, you could be waiting at that roundabout for 5 minutes or so just to get through it. Also, with the cars parked along Dudley Rd it is difficult at most times of the day to get out of the current carpark and safely turn left onto Dudley Rd. This will only get worse with extra cars entering and leaving.
    2. Parking is already at a premium at the shops and along all of the roads mentioned above. Is there provision for extra parking? Understandably new residents will have their own parking. If there is to be commercial dwellings - where will their patrons / customers / staff park?
    3. Yes, residents have been spoilt with the green corridor that has been there for years. Access to the shops from the Fernleigh track has also been easy. Whitebridge shops might see a decline in trade if it is no longer easy for walkers and cyclists to access them from the track.
    4. I am concerned about the lack of provision for green space in this new development. It will be a hot concrete jungle!

  3. Bridgette Davis commented

    There are many concerns and this development needs a whole lot more thought and planning:

    1. Lack of walkways for residents, large number of young families living in the area, this open space provided a safe access to the whitebridge shops for residents living in Station St and Hudson St.

    2. Lack of dog exercise areas. There is only 1 unleashed dog exercise area in Whitebridge, this area is not fenced and backs onto a busy road.

    3.During peak hour prior to the area being fenced off which was used for parking for shop patrons a queue would sometimes form backing on to the Whitebridge roundabout, this is considerably worse since the property has been fenced off. Not to mention the plan to build more shops with no additional parking.

    4.How exactly would future residents of this proposed development access their cars if the developers plan to take the last bit of green space into a car park on the other side of the track?

    5. Unsure if the fernleigh track could be widened if this development takes place. This is definitely an issue as it gets busier and busier all the time.

    6. The infrastructure is not there to support this many dwellings.

  4. MPurcell commented

    1. The people of Whitebridge were not consulted on this matter

    2. The amount of congestion already apparent especially at school times has not been taken into account

    3. This does not fit in with any of the surroundings of Whitebridge, I applied for an extension on my house and we were not even allowed to have a carport where we wanted it because it did not fit in with surrounds, so this is a joke on everyone

    4. The amount of noise and upheaval with the proposed development is not acceptable

    5. Privacy to the people around the proposed development will be impinged

    6. This kind of development is not needed

    7. How will this affect students attending Whitebridge High school and also surrounding schools

    8. It is basically an eyesore on Whitebridge

    9. The effect on local wildlife that use this area as a corridor

    10. The area has already been fenced and look at the mess and upset and ridiculous parking this has caused

  5. Sean Brown commented

    I have some concerns over this development.

    1) Road and pedestrian safety.

    The only car access to the dwellings is via the Kopa St, Lonus Ave. With 87 units with roughly 250 bedrooms, this will result in around 200 cars. These intersections cannot handle that kind of traffic load.
    With a day care centre, pre school, high school and sporting facilities all being connected to this tiny intersection, pedestrian, especially that of children, will be put at risk.
    This intersection can't even handle the load as it is during peak hours, rainy days are far worse.

    Even if only half the cars in the development leave during the peak periods the results will be extremely dangerous.

    Giving the residents of the development another entrance/exit to Dudley Rd could help split the traffic.

    2) Parking for Shops

    On the other side of the development, Dudley Rd side are an additional 4 commercial units. As i observe every day form living here the existing car parking for the shops can barley handle the load. Adding more shops an no extra parking will only compound this problem.
    Resulting in more people parking in unsuitable and dangerous places, running across the road, thru traffic etc. A recipe for danger.
    Visitors and even residents of the new development will even use this car parking, is for many of them it will be more convenient than driving around the back. Visitors especially. Resulting in even less parking.
    This isn't the giant Charlestown Square on a Thursday night, were you go to drive round the car park for a hour, so you can buy the latest fashion. This is a local shopping centre were people stop by on their way home from work to grab a few groceries, or stop at the cafe or bakery. Or even come to see the doctor (the car park serves him to), and pick up their scripts.
    We use it for convenience not for the excitement of fighting for a car park.
    Less parking for more shops = Less parks per shop = Less business for each shop.
    If it is no longer convenient then we will stop using it and the businesses will suffer.

    3. The Density

    250 bedrooms, 200 cars. It's too much. I am not against development, my income depends on the building industry, but this is over the top for this site. It is way above the average for the area, and the local amenities can't cope. Less dwellings, even if this results in them being slightly larger, with more green area. It would be great to see an actual park area worked in, not just a green strip down the side. This will result in a much better scenario. It will give a little back to the community and connect the two. making it a nice place to live.
    Imagine that. Half way along Fernleigh track, where people can stop get some food from a local shop, eat it in the park before continuing their journey.

    Less dwellings will also go part of the way to reducing the resulting traffic problems.

    4. Other concerns are making sure the engineering for storm water management is up to scotch. Any over flow will drain straight on to the track.
    Impact on surrounding property value.

    The For Sale sign for the land described it as a land mark site and what ever goes here will be exactly that. And I think the development should suit that title.

    Do we want a good land mark or a bad one?

    I don't want to here people give directions like "Just turn left after the horrible housing development"

    I think with some amendments to the plan, and a bit more integration to the local community this could be a quality high value development, that is a win win for both the developer and the community.

    Sean Brown

  6. S.Grant commented

    Hello please kindly take the following onboard

    1. How will council address the inadequate parking for the extra business that are proposed for influx of customers and staff?

    2. it is of a huge concern that if parking is not exteneded that the business that the local community rely apon will lose out with less trade thus losing jobs and giving less opertunity to locals to stay within the area for work. How will council be ensuring that this does not happen?

    3. pedestrian saftey - whitebridge shops already have an extremly busy center which will only get worse if proper walk ways are not provided within the area. what plan is in place to provide a safer shopping precient within it and surrounding it? extra zebra crossings linking both sides of dudley rd.

    4. lighting at dusk and at night is already comprimised within the parking allotment, will council be looking at this and what measures will be taken?

    5. access to fernleigh track is limited by the new tempory fence that has been errected, busineses are already being affected, as the usual route to the center has been modified without notice from the track. SNL seem to have a complete disregard for this area. I have noticed that the fence has missing panels, is this creating a saftey issue?

    6. staff are having to park on an unsealed, un lighted and undulating patch of dirt at the moment I call for this situation to be looked at as soon as possible, since all business owners are responisble for staff as they leave there place of work and also on their arrival, this puts them at a high risk and this should be assesd.

    7. entry and exit from the shopping center should be upgraded, line of vision is comprimised now let alone when new commercial buildings are put in place, a safer option should be considerd

    8. parking on dudley road across from the buss stop should also be looked at with possible painting parking lines and changing or adding a parking zone with times of 15-20mins. This would help the business that have in and out customers freeing up some of the congestion

    9. with the shopping precient as a whole becomming busier with hopefully better parking attracting even more customers to the area, public toilets should also be considerd, the toilets at the childrens park are un sanitary and look like a prison toilet that are also not very private making them feel like a slum not very inviting and also very intimidating, are there any rules for shopping center size and public toilet ammenites?

    10. what measures will be taken to help minimise the inpact to the parking for staff and customers when the area becomes a construction zone?

    11. who is responisble for maintaing the green zone allocated to the back of the development and is there a roster/routine in place to ensure that the green zone is safe for people who wish to use it.

    12. the area is zoned 22? medium? is this development that is proposed classed as dense?

    13. the facias of the development look like storage containers how can this be inproved and is there a ratio for garage door to facia surface area is this complying?

    14. The road surface on dudley rd towards the bridge is in need of repair as the road has dropped away leaving a step/drop off the side creating a hazard for bike riders and pedestrians potentially causing to cars and motorcycles, the traffic is so heavy at times that motorists leave the shopping center turning left then doing a u - turn which is easier and faster than trying to turn right onto dudley rd running the gauntlet of crossing the road, when the buss stop is full a severe blind spot is created. Traffic lights should be considerd to help with traffic flow on dudley road

    15. concerns to the amount of traffic in peak times along kopa st, can this road handle this amount of new traffic during and after construction

    16. have the roads been designed wide enough for waste and recycling trucks to gain access? with regard to waste has council considerd the implications to extra waste generated at awaba at its current rate we are almost at 80% full.

    17. land value is of grave concern to all residents, have council made any evaluations in respect to the rate payers losing land value?

    19. Fire evacuation - the area is a high risk fire zone - if a mass evacuation of the residents within the development is required is a one way in one way out road practical and will it provide a fast and easy access/exit . Have or will the RFS provide the report? will fire engine/s be able to gain access to the area and are water hydrants for engine connection provided with in the development

    20. with lake mac being an excellent enviroment leader are there rules/regulations in place for new large scale dense developments to help reduce carbon emmisions in the effect of water power and gas consumption and of course the removal of waste. This could be an ecellent opertunity to create an eco village are there any thoughts in this area. I would find it contradictory to lake mac if there was not a standard in place to let a development like this go through without checks in place. There dosent seem to be any provisions of rain water collection in the plans, greywater recycling would also add to the eco aspect as with building design to reduce cooling and heating. and community meeting places that could provide comunial activites like gardening and social activites like eating together in a central location. Are there companies that will be engaged to advise on these types of issues?

    21. with extra commercial properties being added have provisions been made for delivery vehicles?

    Thank you for taking the time to listen to my concerns.

  7. N.Dorothy commented

    Is this the proposed site that I heard people talking about that proposed to build government subsidised public housing in our area? Would like to know more about this.

    1 Great concern about congestion especially at roundabout during school mornings, witness many near misses.

    2. Concern about extra congestion for local shops -incredibly difficult to get carpark during peak time and difficult to see from carpark onto Dudley Road if you need to turn right especially if cars are parked on the street

    3. We do not want "lego land' new estate feel in the area its ugly and doesn't match surrounding area/community

    4. Just because there is a parcel of land doesn't mean we need to fill it to the brim with houses, what about usable green areas for kids.

    5. Impact to local daycare and preschool- had my children and even unborn baby on waitlist to get into local daycare, this will impact existing families and extend the already 2-3 year waiting list to get in. I'm still waiting for bub to get in!!!!

    6. Impact local schools- infrastructure- to have extra classroom and now with government school cuts what will that mean to class sizes?

    6. Extra traffic in Whitebridge will also have a flow-on effect to surrounding areas such as extra traffic congestion at Oakdale road Gateshead which can be heavily congested in mornings/ afternoons especially if you turn right from Bullgarden Road onto Oakdale Rd

    7. Extra traffic congestion to Kahibah Road/City Road lights. Already overly congested, some mornings I get stuck at the lights 4 times before I get through.

    8. Extra traffic congestion at intersection going towards Charlestown square

    9. Extra traffic congestion trying to turn from Smart street right into Pacific Hwy Charlestown, as it is if pedestrian are crossing your lucky to get 2 cars through turning right at these lights.

    10. prevent the community feel of the area.

    11. What about providing the community with a carpark and parkland such as a fitness park, sheltered BBQ area.

    12. I strongly believe that proposed development with the increased traffic will reinstate the WARREN ROAD bypass issue which we seem to have to fight every few years. Give us a break! People live here because we like the bush and space and don't want to be around overdeveloped, overpopulated areas.

    13. Very disappointed that local community has not been consulted regarding such a large development, unless you subscribe to planning alerts you would not be aware of the enormous impact this development would have on our area.

  8. mark commented

    NO NO NO this is development is B/s, this is the work of greedy developers, trying to maximize every inch of space, it should be a normal housing estate, with open space provision. the congestion this development will cause will flow on to all streets surrounding it. It has already done so with them just fencing off the area, let alone adding another couple hundred cars to the problem. Normal house blocks with garages and off street parking, would not be a problem. This development cannot happen!!!!!

  9. Michelle Burdekin commented

    I would like to put on notice the concerns I already hold about a range of aspects related to the reasonable person’s assessment of the over-development of this site:
    • One road in and out for 87 units- despite normal concerns, it’s also in a fire zone
    • Traffic flow will be impeded further in an area which already draws to a preschool, high school, tennis court, playground and shopping precinct and whose roundabout gets blocked at present on a frequent basis causing extensive queuing at certain times of the day and week along feeder roads and streets as well as at the direct point of intersection
    • Parking congestion, which has already increased with the reclamation of land formerly in use to accommodate overflow to that provided by the shops – the inclusion of four more shops will only compound this.
    • Some suggestion that the overflow will then move on to the green verge on Station Street – to my understanding this is part of the green corridor and zoned environmental. Not only that but the crossing over the bridge from that point back to the shops is too narrow for passing bodies and right in line with a narrow road carriage ie. dangerous
    • Lack of pedestrian right of way to join up with existing community and allow for continuation of historic and formerly permitted thoroughfare. The track through this land provided thoroughfare and safety allowing direct access to the shopping precinct and pedestrian crossing and allowing users of Fernleigh Track access to shops and pedestrian crossing.
    • Destruction of local features, such as the playground near the preschool on Lonus Avenue, to accommodate the traffic increase starts to become an imagined possibility
    • Invasion of privacy on neighbouring properties is severe and those in nearby residences who’ve recently had two storey units built alongside speak of this as well as overshadowing and a wall of glare as a legacy that goes on after the noise and disruption of building ceases
    • Poor design apparently mandated on economics not liveability – western orientation for many units, limited green or playing space, and no obvious adherence to any sustainable design elements. The legacy of poorly designed complexes is well known and in an area where the location, close to nature and abutting the Fernleigh Track, this seems counter-intuitive at best.
    • The creation of exclusivity internally in the development, where the adaptable living units are sectioned off from others rather than included among them.

  10. kenneth hobbs commented

    we need eco sensitive developments in whitebridge,not get rich quick schemes for greedy developers.development needs to be done with local ratepayers views took into consideration.less units done with better planning seems like a more sensible option,even affordable house lots with a minimum amount of trees per block.we don't need high density developments in this area.less greed more thought needed.kenneth hobbs

  11. Karina Currington commented

    Has there been any traffic studies undertaken on the surrounding streets? I am wondering if the local members are actually aware of how heavy the traffic can get in peak school drop off hours, not to mention the complete gridlock in inclement weather. I fear this could lead to a disaster if there is an emergency in the proposed high density development at these peak times, there is NO OTHER WAY emergency services will be able to access the entrance/exit. I lived on Lonus Avenue for 25 years and witnessed first hand the dramatic increase of traffic over time including more high school teenagers on their P plates driving to and from school. There needs to be a suitable alternative put in place for the high amount of traffic that will be attempting to turn in and out of Kopa St.

    Could it be considered that a lower density development would be more in keeping with the area, I feel there is really not enough infrastructure to support this great new influx of residents. There is only a public bus that runs once every hour at the moment, is this really adequate? How are the garbage/ recycling trucks able to manoeuver through the narrow streets? Where are the overflow of visitors cars expected to park? What does this mean for existing residents who find they are unable to enter and exit their own driveway safely? How are the sewerage and drainage/ runoff services going to cope? How will the local shopkeepers react when people are unable to find parking so decide to shop elsewhere?

    The decision to approve this particular development impacts the Whitebridge and surrounding areas very deeply. I urge the members to listen to the residents concerns when making this decision. After all, they have to live with it.

  12. Karyn Huizing commented

    As a resident of Kopa St this development, if it goes ahead as is, will impact me greatly. I am set to have a possible extra 600 odd cars pass my door to stop and start at the Kopa St/Lonus Ave intersection EVERYDAY. I am as you can understand horrified by the thought of my children no longer having a safe, quiet street in which to live. This development is far to big for our area. It has very little space for children to play and be kids. The proposal of parking area with increased shops is ridiculous, anyone visiting the shops already knows about the parking issues.
    I can only hope that people get behind this and make a stand for our community. The council and developer need to hear your concerns, Hopefully in the end some compromise and common sense on behalf of those in power will prevail.
    Please come to the meeting, contact council and do whatever you can to be heard, if we don't fight now it will be too late.

  13. N.Hakansson commented

    I'm concerned about:

    Pedestrian safety especially for the elderly & children.

    Vehicle safety & traffic congestion on Kopa Street, Lonus Ave & Dudley Road.

    Safe access to day care centre, high school, playground, tennis courts, bus stops and shops.

    Increased hazard entering & exiting Whitebridge shopping area .

    Reduction of parking at Whitebridge shops.

    Lack of alternative exit in case of bush fire emergency.

    Integrating the new development with the existing community.

    Lack of green space and outdoor play areas.

    This development CAN be modified to become an asset to the community.

  14. Gwenda Smith commented

    We are very concerned about the sheer size of the proposed development, it could become a ghetto in the future with so many people crowded into a small space.

    The plan reduces the amount of parking available to customers of the Whitebridge shops and has already had a detrimental impact on safety in the area due to the early erection of the cyclone fencing. This is already a very busy area along Dudley Rd, with traffic exiting the car park turning right a hazard at the best of times. Cars are often parked now right up to the bridge.

    The plan will cause increased traffic and congestion in Dudley Rd, Bullsgarden Rd, Lonus Ave and Kopa St, as well as other local roads such as Burwood Rd and Waran Rd.

    There will be ramifications for the safety of the local students and people at the high school, the pre-school, the childrens' playground, tennis courts, cricket field etc.

    Surely the development can be modified to something more acceptable to the community, not just those who live and work in the immediate area, but those of us in Whitebridge generally, Dudley, Redhead, Charlestown East etc. A smaller development would also be a more pleasant and functional place for the residents who end up living there.

  15. catherine hodgson commented

    Too much much too soon. No consideration for parking, road access, pedestrians. Comfortable living period. It at present is a beautiful green space that will become blighted by over crowded buildings. A slum in the making.

  16. Rhett Oswald commented

    I have lived in Whitebridge for the past 20 years, my children all went to Whitebridge high school so I can confirm that parking around school times is diabolic especially when wet. The traffic banks up on both Waran Road and Lonus Avenue leading into Whitebridge roundabout and shops. Having one access into Kopa street which leads into Lonus avenue, shows a complete lack of foresight.

    I would like to know how having that amount of units in such a small place with no provision for green space or parking is going to impact on an already congested environment. Surely LMCC can come to a common sense decision that is not in weighted in favour of greedy developers and the tempting rates that will be generated for the council.

    The parking in the shopping centre is extremely busy and you really need your wits about you to avoid having an accident (I have witnessed about 10 in the past year). We do not need to have the parking problem amplified then rectified with a barrage of restrictions, rangers/ fines, traffic lights and god forbid parking meters. (don’t laugh this is one of Newcastle Council’s major sources of revenue)

    My home is not far from this area and has been declared an extremely high risk fire hazard area, this development is much closer to bushland than my home so one would think that all these residences in such a small area could be catastrophic (in the event of a fire) with one entry/exit point.

    By all means have a development but this plan reeks of greed, by jamming as many residences as possible into a confined space with no thought given to the future implications of current and future residents in this area. Think about the design, make it comply environmentally and sustainably and a place that people want to live in with play areas and seating/benches.

  17. chris layzell commented

    it just shows you what money,greed,and corruption can do..it will destroy this community...and will become the new windale..the developers don't care they make the money then piss off...and we are left to deal with it...

  18. Sharyn Carr commented

    I find the proposed development highly unsuitable for the area, with a lack of foresight and planning. Please have a rethink taking into consideration environmental, parking, traffic and numerous other issues that have been raised by concerned citizens.

  19. Sylvie Jacobi-McCarthy commented

    I'm concerned that this development is not in keeping with the Whitebridge community.

    This development needs adequate parking that takes into account;
    the number of residents,
    guests of those residents,
    employees and clients of the four proposed businesses,
    and the flow of traffic on Lonus Avenue.

    It is also concerning that this development will largely diminish local residents access to open green spaces for recreation. I think that an effort to maintain recreational space is needed in the plans.

  20. Laurie Mascord commented

    I am very concerned about 'the Whitebridge of the future' if this development takes place in its proposed form.

    I am worried about SAFETY as I have two small children who I walk to and from preschool by crossing the Fernleigh Track and walking along Kopa Street AND Lonus Ave.

    I am worried about the negative change in the TONE/MOOD/CULTURE of Whitebridge which will occur once a development like that is placed right in its centre, or heart.

    I am worried about the AESTHETICS of the area, once an eye-sore like that exists which looks like a slum and does not fit harmoniously with the existing environment.

    I am worried about the TRAFFIC CONGESTION which is inappropriate for the small, suburban roads of Whitebridge.

    This development is unjust for a suburb where people are just living peacefully, raising their kids and trying to enjoy life.

    THIS DEVELOPMENT BENEFITS NO-ONE EXCEPT THE DEVELOPERS!
    IT IS GREED.

    Whitebridge would welcome a FAIR, JUST AND APPROPRIATE development.

    There is a'mutually beneficial' way.

    Please help save our suburb.

  21. David Thomas commented

    Issues with this proposed development include:

    Traffic congestion and parking for residents and patrons of the Whitebridge shops and the proposed businesses.

    It also cuts off access to the Fernleigh Track from the Lonus Avenue side, which my family and many others regularly use.

    It diminishes the amount of recreational space for families and residents, as well as those using the Fernleigh Track.

    It will cause issues for traffic flow around Whitebridge High School and cause inconvenience to the many students, staff, families and members of the community.

    It is both impractical and ill thought out to have these units, as it shall be too many people crammed into too small an area.

  22. Geoff Williams commented

    My wife and I moved to Whitebridge almost 40 years ago when it was considered by many to be a “depressed” area. During the ensuing years we have seen many changes, e.g. the development of the industrial area at Metro Court and the residential area where the old drive-in used to be, the development of Dudley Beach Estate vicinity, the development of the Whitebridge Shopping precinct, the building of the medium density housing in the Hudson Street/Baroomba Street area, work on Bullsgarden Road, improvements and expansion of Whitebridge Cemetery, Central Leagues Club and associated playing fields, the Fernleigh Track and much more. All of these changes have enhanced the local area and made it a popular residentially

    Changes to the zoning of properties along Dudley Road, whilst having no immediate or rapid effect on the area is seeing new developments begun. It is commonly believed that medium density housing is becoming more accepted and necessary. One particular development currently under construction on Dudley Road represents, in my view, the type of blight on the area that should be avoided. Whilst I am sure it meets all legal requirements its imposition on the neighbourhood is indisputable. It is surely the first example of unabashed developer greed which takes no account of the wishes and opinions of the local residents.

    The plan submitted to LMCC to build 87, two, three and four bedroom units, two to three stories high on a 2.2 hectare site between Dudley Road and Kopa Street Whitebridge smacks of developer greed on a massive scale. This is a proposal which defies logic given the nature of the obvious safety concerns raised not only by the density of the dwellings but more so by the extreme limitations on access to and from the “compound”. Given that there is a very popular shopping precinct and preschool/day-care facility in very close proximity, a high school with really only one vehicular access road, the adjacent Bullsgarden Road/Dudley Road roundabout and all of the other cross streets etc. in a reasonably traffic busy area the addition of another 150 – 250 motor vehicles to the area is a nightmare waiting to happen. Government transport is dismal now, it has no hope of coping with the possible increase in patronage should the new residents be forced onto it. Many children and elderly citizens walk to and from schools and shops and the number of cyclists in the area has greatly increased with the presence of the Fernleigh Track. The marked increase in traffic volumes will in all likelihood see more pedestrian/cyclist and motor vehicle accidents.

    The “elephant in the room” so to speak is the social problem which can be likely with a development such as this. Many examples of “ghetto” type developments are easily quoted. The close proximity of an alcohol outlet is in itself problematic if the housing contains significant numbers of “bored” young people.

    We know that change is inevitable and in fact desirable. Change must be tempered with reason. Developers claim that they see the future however, it is notable that they are never around in the future. When they have made their money they are gone. Politicians are similarly placed. Their terms of office are limited. When the developers and the politicians are gone from the scene, the monstrosities and the social problems they leave remain as do the residents of the area who must abide with the leavings of others.

    This planned development as it stands is entirely undesirable. It is not in keeping within the Whitebridge community. It will be a blight on the area.

    ,

  23. Laurie Mascord commented

    I am very concerned about 'the Whitebridge of the future' if this development takes place in its proposed form.

    I am worried about SAFETY as I have two small children who I walk to and from preschool by crossing the Fernleigh Track and walking along Kopa Street AND Lonus Ave.

    I am worried about the negative change in the TONE/MOOD/CULTURE of Whitebridge which will occur once a development like that is placed right in its centre, or heart.

    I am worried about the AESTHETICS of the area, once an eye-sore like that exists which looks like a slum and does not fit harmoniously with the existing environment.

    I am worried about the TRAFFIC CONGESTION which is inappropriate for the small, suburban roads of Whitebridge.

    This development is unjust for a suburb where people are just living peacefully, raising their kids and trying to enjoy life.

    THIS DEVELOPMENT BENEFITS NO-ONE EXCEPT THE DEVELOPERS!
    IT IS GREED.

    Whitebridge would welcome a FAIR, JUST AND APPROPRIATE development.

    There is a'mutually beneficial' way.

    Please help save our suburb.

  24. Rhyss Hamilton commented

    This development is a JOKE, another farcical money grab by GREEDY fat cats.

    Don't let them get away with it in our area, this DA should not be approved.

    Balance. Harmony. Sustainability.

  25. Andrew Morgan commented

    Firstly I appreciate the need for mixed development, not everyone needs a 700 m2 block with a 4 brm house. The block lends itself to medium density housing. What has been proposed here is way too many dwellings on one parcel of land with one entry & exit point. The development is totally out of character with the remainder of the suburb and should be reviewed to include open space / parkland.

    other issues.

    1. Parking - prior to the fence going up most of the employees of the shops parked on the grass behind the barrier leaving the car park for customers. This system worked well. Now there are extra shops going in and less parking. This will force cars out onto Dudley road and surrounding side streets. This is a major safety issue as none of these streets were designed for this level of parking. There is a huge amount of school children pedestrian traffic around the area and the extra parking will create hazards for pedestrians which will be only a matter of time before an incident occurrs. As a minimum the should be no dwellings or shops south of the current shop front line and the developer should make all this land through to the train line car parking.

    2. Traffic in Kopa st / Lonus Ave - the only exit & entry will be through Kopa st. I suggest council send someone up when school is busy (not december) and see what the traffic is like at the end of Lonus ave. This is without a few hundred extra car movements. The exit point is near a day care facility with toddlers, the extra traffic will lead to frustration and drivers will take risks to get out into the traffic flow around 2-4 year old children. Not good enough !! They need to re-think where the access comes from as the current streets are already overloaded in peak time.

    3. Loss of open space - the development does not include any open space. It will resemble a ghetto and the character of the area will degrade accordingly. Council and the developers have the opportunity to make a really positive impact on the community if they get the balance right. At present it seems to be trying to fit as many dwellings as possible onto a block with out consideration of the character of the surrounds.

    I think the council needs to send a message to the developer to have another think and really consider the views of the residents. This is a huge loss of open space to our community and should be managed in a responsible way to benefit all.

  26. Monique Grace commented

    This development needs to be rethought out to suit the area and the community. Issues with the high impact of the extra housing in a small area which increases usages on all infrastructure including traffic and other amenities. This land was purchased from the original home owners to be used for a bypass and should never have been rezoned to accommodate a development such as this.

    Access to Fernleigh Track from the Lonus Avenue side will become a safety issue with all the extra traffic entering and exiting Kopa Street. This is how my family currently access the track to ride or walk along this corridor which we have enjoyed since before it was paved and constructed.

    I hope the council takes into account the community concerns about this development as the traffic along Dudley Road continues to increase with the additional medium housing boom happening in the area.

    The parking near and around the shops will become an increasingly urgent safety aspect with more people using the space. Already the bus stop and pedestrian crossing limits visibility for drivers and safe crossing of Dudley Road.

  27. Ardel & Rodney Prout commented

    I do not agree with this subdivision going ahead in its present state.
    The houses are all crammed in with no yard space. Where is the Australian
    dream? There's no green space to make this an attractive village. If
    the houses were lower density, with garages, lawns and back yards, it would
    make it a more affable and attractive place to live. Another problem
    is the lack of parking space at Whitebridge Shopping Centre. It is already
    impossible to get a park most days and with all the extra people living next
    to the Centre, and no extra parking in the estate, and only one entrance in
    an out, the congestion caused in Lonus Avenue, especially at school times,
    will cause frustration and accidents. There is also the problem of
    fire hazard. If there was a fire in one dwelling, it could easily spread
    and with only one access to the properties it could be disastrous. I have lived in the area for 35 years, and over that time the extra traffic
    on Dudley Road has increased as it is used as a through road from the Redhead/Belmont
    area. It is sometimes quite a wait to get onto the road from the Dudley
    side streets. With this in mind, the extra traffic from the roundabout at
    Warran Road, Dudley Road and Bulls Garden Road will be horrendous. There should also be a wide green belt around the Fernleigh Track. This is
    supposed to be for walkers and bicycle riders and be a pleasant experience
    for all. I certainly hope there is a lot more sensible thought put
    into this project before it goes ahead.

  28. Jonpaul DeAngelis commented

    I believe the application in its current form should NOT be approved.

    It's incredible to think that such a significant development within the area, in such a prominant location, has it's most important issue of traffic management, safety and access already "per-determined" by Council. Mayor jodie Harrison's confirmation of Council advice to the Developer, to use Kopa St as the ONLY point of entry is fundamentally wrong.

    Under what basis has this been determined LMCC ? What is the impact of this on the nearby streets, Kopa St, Turrug St, Lonus Ave, Tumpoa St, Warren Rd, Dudley Rd ? What is the impact on the local, schools, shops, parks, medical centre, Ferleigh track ? Why is Council not fully considering these impacts on our community ?

    When an unfortunate accident occurs due to the requirement by Council to use Kopa St, then who will be to blame ? What impact will this development have on the existing traffic on Warren Rd ? Why is Council not insisting on entry from Dudley Rd, a much safer option, with the correct upgrades ?

    Accessing the development via Dudley Rd via an upgrade to accommodate the significant traffic volumes is the only solution. It would set the framework for a "good" development, not "guarantee" it's failure.

  29. Kelly Davis commented

    My wife and I live in a small miners cottage on Station St (opposite development site) which we bought around 2 years ago.We love this area as it is close to everything but still retains a community feel . I think it is one of most desirable suburbs for many reasons. Perhaps the biggest attraction for many people is the amazing area of bushland leading down to the ocean. To live near this we should all be truly thankful.

    To develop this land in Whitebridge in the manner proposed would be a crime.

    I think it is basically wrong to turn a fairly quiet community into a busy/congested area overnight.This piece of land shouldn't be viewed as instant dollars, but built on so it dosn't detract from the towns unique characteristics. I'm just not convinced that 100, 3 storey brick and tile town houses crammed on top of one another is going to be good for Whitebridge.

    I believe there should be a public footpath running towards the shops (preferably on the development site) as there is no footpath from Station St . This means locals would walk or ride pushbikes instead of getting in cars. Appropriate landscaping on the site is also essential . A green corridor running both sides of a walkway would be good.

    There are many things to consider here, I really hope someone has the decency to take a long hard look at this proposal, and admit that it could be done a whole lot better.

  30. N Quinn commented

    This whole development needs a complete rethink!

    Too many residents in such a small space with no regard for appropriate infrastructure.

    There are not enough roads in and out of the development - where is the traffic study prior to this proposal? Where is the revised traffic study based on the proposal going ahead?

    The area is congested in the morning and afternoons already and there is not enough parking there already for the shops in use - I can see residents parking in the shopping areas already due to not enough access of parking provided for 250 plus bedrooms.

    A good number of the residents face the wrong direction to achieve good environmental planning which means excessive air conditioning use which is not efficient, cost more for residents and uses more power. Peak loads will change in that area which could effect the already inconsistent power issues in the area.

    For such a green focused council this proposed development doesn't seem to meet any of the council guidelines for eco friendliness

    One could suggest that this development seems more about profit than good environmental design for urban growth.

  31. Sheena Dobbins commented

    My main concern with this development is increased traffic congestion on the round about at Lonus Ave and Warren Road and side streets that exist onto Dudley Road which are already congested prior to this development. With a lot of bicycles and pedestrians already using Fernleigh Track via Lonus Ave I feel there is an accident waiting to happen with extra cars entering and existing Kopa Street. There is not enough parking at shops and visibility on crossing going towards Dudley is limited by the fence. High School Students, Pre-Schoolers, Primary Students walking to school and children using the park at end of Lonus Ave safety should also be considered.

  32. Gregory Lewis commented

    Hi,
    The density of the proposed current DA is excessive to say the least. We currently experience notable traffic issues in this built up area, and to approve this development in its current form would turn our local traffic into an extreme bottleneck. We have the local shops with traffic, we have the local High School traffic, and to add such a ridiculous extreme number of dwellings with an estimate of 2 cars per dwelling would be nothing short of insane.
    The area should have the commercial shops extended, in so doing it would protect any proposed dwellings behind, also it would add to the parking for customers of the existing and proposed shops.
    The distance to the Fernleigh track should be greater allowing for the current Native Flora and Fauna and to act as a buffer for those who use the track.
    In respect of privacy, overshadowing, View Corridors, the current proposed development does not allow for privacy and overshadowing and even view corridors in accordance with Lake Mac Council guidelines and as a consequence must be redesigned to comply with privacy and overshadowing and even view corridors.
    Visitor Parking has not been suitably addressed to accommodate this extreme proposed number of dwellings, this current DA must be scaled down in the proposed number of dwellings to comply with Lake Mac Council Visitor Parking Per Dwelling.
    Any use of the current loop hole of Low Cost Housing or Senior Living Housing, MUST have a positive covenant placed on title ensuring that these are complied with and there must be policing conducted by Lake Mac Council.
    The current use of the land for years for the locals has been that of green belt open space and for it to not have any green belt open space incorporated into any proposed development is not in keeping with the area, nor is it sympathetic to the locals and the long standing use of the site. This will without doubt cost votes to any Mayoral candidate. This will be distributes to locals via flyers, Posters and word of mouth. Whitebridge is a tight knit community and we have friends throughout all of Lake Macquarie Council Shire and we will use our influence if need be.
    A proposal of a combination single storey and two storey homes ALL freestanding with the frontage on Dudley Rd being an extension of commercial shops and customer parking with some green belt open space (Park) within the development would be appreciated and well received by locals and visitors.
    In short the current proposed development is extreme to say the least and it is NOT welcomed and is NOT to be approved. Please refer to the above to find reasons for why not, also please see above for a brief on what is desired.
    WE DO NOT WANT A GHETTO. DEVELOPERS ARE TRYING TO USE LOOPHOLES TO MAXIMISE THE NUMBER OF DWELLINGS TO ACHIEVE MAXIMUM PROFITS FOR THEMSELVES WITH NO CONCERN ABOUT COUNCIL, THE SUBURB OR EVEN SHIRE. THIS MUST BE STOPPED WITH COUNCIL PLANNERS AT THE FOREFRONT. WHAT ARE WE TO LEAVE AS INHERITANCE TO OUR CHILDREN ? THIS IS A DISGRACE, TOWN PLANNERS AND COUNCILLORS AND THE MAYOR SHOULD EXERCISE COMMON SENSE.

  33. Petar B commented

    How a development like this can even be taken into consideration is absolutely insane. This should be a regular housing estate with 25-30 properties (this will actually boost land value and the general life style in the area).

    To add this much congestion in such a small area does not require complex math to figure out it is a bad idea and will not work in this location. Property values will diminish and the young families that have purchased properties in Whitebridge for a family life style will most certainly leave the suburb if a development as absurd as this was to be approved.

    This type of development would be a great idea for an area like Jesmond where there is a greater demand for small units which would benefit things such as the university, not a growing family suburb which has sustained growth due to the lifestyle benefits of the area.

    The only people that can see positives with this proposition are the developers, NO ONE ELSE!!!

  34. Bruce Sibthorpe commented

    Whitebridge High School Parents’ and Citizens’ Association Submission Concerning the Proposed Multiple-Dwelling and Mixed Use Development, 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street Whitebridge NSW 2290. DA-1774/2013

    The December meeting of the Whitebridge High School Parents’ and Citizens’ Association discussed the proposal at length. We have referred to the proposal’s Social Impact Assessment (SIA), the Crime Risk Assessment Report (CRAR), the Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) and The Transport Report by Better Transport Futures (TR).

    The meeting was advertised as a discussion forum for the proposed development and was well attended. A large number of concerns were raised relating to, but not limited to:

    The public realm and aesthetics of the proposed development
    Public amenity
    Traffic management in terms of access and egress in relation to school based pedestrian and traffic
    Parking and transport, and
    Impact on existing infrastructure.

    The nature of the discussion will be addressed under each of the above points.

    From the outset it needs to be stated that the P&C recognises the need for new housing and development in the community of Whitebridge. It also, more importantly, recognises the need to have any development be in line with moderate community growth, in line with existing facilities and allow the evolution of the community to occur over time and in line with a steady expansion of facilities and dwellings in the context of the village atmosphere that exists and provides an atmosphere of safety and utility for residents, in our case the students and school community.

    Public realm and aesthetics

    A high level of concern was expressed at the nature of the development in relation to the existing dwellings and housing in the village of Whitebridge.

    The proposal is totally out of context with a village that is predominately single dwellings in a low density setting. Granted that local government area zoning rules has been amended to accommodate medium density living but the extent and scope of this development is at the upper to extreme end of the medium density zoning. This fact was openly admitted by the developer’s representative at the public meeting. In short the proposal is out of step with the current community setting. The impact of this proposed development would be significant in social terms.

    Notably the development is devoid of space for each dwelling. There are no softening features for the development in terms of the skyline and amenity in terms in blending in with the existing housing and bushland facilities offered by the proximity to the Fernleigh Track and Glenrock Conservation area or offered by the village context of the existing shopping facilities and services.

    Lessons need to be learned from similar developments owned by the NSW Department of Housing in Hexham Street Kahibah and previously in Kahibah, Woodrising and Booragul (the latter having been demolished and removed.) All these developments have been totally out of place with surrounding village atmospheres and have attracted a rise in anti-social behaviours and crime. These are examples where high density living has resulted in behaviours that have required the intervention of law enforcement and other government agencies.

    Fears were expressed over the high potential for significant changes to the social fabric of the village because of the high density of the development. It is noted that the SIA refers to this but considers it unlikely. Our view is that the SIA is totally dismissive of this crucial aspect of higher density living.

    The P&C has the opposite view and requests the Council to be alert to the unseen impacts of this aspect of the development and request appropriate modifications and amendments be made to the capacity and scope of the development proposal before approval.

    We accept that the population has to live somewhere and that the open space is appropriate for housing development. This development needs to be moderate and in keeping with the context of the local village community rather than being purposefully out of step with what already exists.

    Public amenity

    There was much discussion over the public amenity aspect of the development proposal. In particular the lack of open space for children to play and be outside of the dwelling. There is a lack of landscaping to enable the skyline of the development to blend in with surrounding dwellings. The dwelling offers no new public amenity but relies on use of the existing amenities.

    There is a lack of accommodation for teenage children who like to ‘hang around” in outdoor areas. Comparisons were made with this aspect of Charlestown Square where considerable cost, effort and time goes into managing teenage behaviour and the associated anti social aspects of that age group. The recreational needs of this age group needs to be acknowledged and planned for. They need opportunities to engage in open spaces interspersed with challenges and facilities such as skate parks/bowls.

    The P&C were most concerned about the lack of space to allow residents, particularly children, the freedom or opportunity to express themselves nearby to their dwelling in a safe manner. The close proximity of motorised vehicles and contained access and egress to the development lends itself to a range of significant safety and social concerns.

    Whitebridge High School has and is the repository of this negative social impact in the community. It has suffered many graffiti incidents and unprovoked vandalism. This adds a huge cost to the school and government services and further stretches the already slow responses to repair. An increase in population without adequate recreational and safety planning will maintain and possibly increase local incidences of these antisocial behaviours.

    Again in relation to this aspect the development is well out of line with the current setting and it is requested that Council place reasonable conditions on the developers to modify the extent of the capacity of the development and make available adequate space for quality interactions and play within the development area.

    Traffic Management

    The P&C were very concerned with this aspect of the development. It is noted from the TR attached to the development proposal that the developer makes it clear that while all the indicators from the recent Waran Road and Burwood Road Traffic Study indicated that the traffic management was within the limits of the road categories the reality of the traffic management situation was totally opposite to that view.

    The parents were most concerned at the one (1) entry and exit for the development and demand that Council not approve this aspect of the proposal in its current form and suggest that Council undertake negotiations regarding alternative access and egress points.

    It was stated adamantly that surely some safe access and egress from the Dudley Road and existing shopping carpark area could be made so as to accommodate the traffic and provide an alternative access other than that suggested in the plans.

    What the TR fundamentally fails to recognise is the large numbers of near misses from the high density of traffic at peak times, particularly with pedestrian traffic. This is of significant concern to the P&C and school community. It is evident to all parents of the school community and to local residents in Lonus Avenue that the school traffic situation in a dead end access street is already an extremely unsafe solution to allow access to a large comprehensive high school. To add in additional traffic to that street with the proposed traffic management plan is to raise the threshold of potential accidents and injury to young children as well as frustration to commuters and local residents in an unnecessary manner. While the use of the word ‘potential’ is used here it is clearly foreseeable to any responsible statutory body that there will be a far higher risk associated with the traffic management of this proposal in its current form.

    The P&C association has already raised the traffic management and parking in Lonus Avenue and surrounding streets as a contentious issue with the Lake Macquarie City Council. To further compound this issue by allowing only one (1) entry and egress point to the development is, in short, short sighted and bears no real understanding of the reality of the situation. The P&C would not like to be in a position of “I told you so” after a fatality to someone associated with the school.

    The recent repaving of Lonus Avenue is a case in point. The school had to intervene with Council to ensure enhanced safety requirements were instituted to make allowances to cater for the high incidence in traffic at peak times. Even after this intervention two (2) students were knocked over crossing Waran Road. The peak time traffic on Lonus Avenue, the Dudley Road roundabout, Waran Road and Whitebridge Village shopping and carpark are notorious for both commuters and pedestrians, add in the impatient and impulsive nature of teenagers in traffic and you have a lethal mix.

    The Council is strongly urged to address the traffic management aspect of this development in a more solution based manner that takes into consideration the nature of the teenage demographic that are the main pedestrians and road users of the Lonus Avenue area.

    Parking and Transport

    This aspect of the development is also of great concern to the P&C association. The village parking is already at high use and is notoriously dangerous when students from the school congregate in the village area. The school responds to many complaints from community residents and shop owners regarding risky behaviour of students in relation to motorists and residents using the small and limited parking facilities.

    While it could be argued that the responsibility for the behaviour is that of individual students it is wise to plan and build facilities that ameliorate risk rather than add to the risk associated with community use of the area.

    Of concern also is the street parking on Lonus Avenue. The school receives many complaints regarding the cramped nature of parking on Lonus Avenue. There is no off street parking for Whitebridge High School. Students, staff and parents are forced to utilise street parking. This regularly angers residents when family members, relatives, tradespeople and emergency services cannot park adjacent to the house they are attending.

    The P&C does not agree with the TR that advises that residents of the development will utilise public transport and use pedestrian means for travel. Clearly the report indicates that vehicle ownership in the community is higher than the LGA and state average. We don’t see this changing considering the higher than LGA and state levels of employment and subsequent higher levels of discretionary income per family.

    Consideration should also be given to the fact that there are two Child Care Centres that use Lonus Avenue and surrounding streets for access, both during and outside the high school hours.

    The P&C association strongly urges Council to reconsider the adequacy of this aspect of the proposed development.

    Impact on existing infrastructure.

    The discussion around the above points clearly provide a substantial underpinning view that the impact of the proposed development will be substantial on the existing infrastructure of the village itself; the surrounding streets and road use; the pedestrian safety; the amenity of the village; the capacity of the services to the development and existing sewerage and treatment facilities as well as the flow on impacts over time of social context and fabric of the village and associated anti social behaviours.

    While it is easy to view the associated reports as being in favour of the development and noting their recognition that there will be some impact on existing infrastructure there is a distinct dismissive tone in the reports. There is also a distinct suggestion that the impact will be monitored and the staging of the development will be such that the impacts will be ameliorated over time by the community getting used to the development as part of the community.

    Our argument is that there will be substantial impact that will be too late to turn around after the development gains approval. This aspect of the planning process needs to be recognised and moderated well before the development gets approval to continue.

    Thank you for allowing us to make comment about the proposal. We hope that the points raised have been useful as they represent the views of a large community based organisation and service provider.

    Christine Beverly
    President
    Whitebridge High School P&C Association

  35. Sharyn Hunter commented

    i do not agree with the development plans for the area off Dudley Rd. My concerns are the traffic congestion in the area, in particular the streets coming off the roundabout on Dudley rd and Kopa St. Currently the parking at the shops is a nightmare and i have observed cars actually parked on the bridge nearby. I also believe that the Fernleigh Track will become more like a suburban street, it's very busy already with many people using it to ride or walk to work, or for exercise. There has been occasions where bike riders are colliding with walkers/runners and one woman was injured quite badly recently. The proposed dwelling itself is an eyesore, what a way to spoil that area and consequently all of Whitebridge. I have been a resident of Whitebridge for all of my 51 years and I would hate to see the community suffer the negative impact that this particular development would bring

  36. Jill Mascord commented

    I am very concerned about the impact the proposed development of Dudley Rd/Kopa St will have on the Whitebridge area.

    I live in Charlestown East and regularly use the shops at Whitebridge. Dudley Rd is ALREADY a very busy road and this development will add much traffic congestion and many parking problems. I often walk to the shops and nearby park with my grandchildren, and I am very concerned about safety around the roads and roundabout when crossing the streets between the shops and to get to the park with the addition of so many more people and cars in such a small area.

    This increase in traffic around the area will also increase noise pollution, rendering it unpleasant for children to play calmly and peacefully in the park adjoining the roundabout.

    My daughter and her young family live in Whitebridge, and I am concerned about the social impact this development will have on the area where they have only recently decided to settle and raise their family. Housing which is densely compacted with little green space (or in this case, NO) green space) and without any pleasant outlook for its residents only breeds tension and frustration. This will adversely affect the culture of the suburb by creating a more city-like feeling through over-population and overdevelopment.

    This development is inappropriate for the area which, as implied above, is a suburb of Newcastle/Lake Macquarie, NOT a city. The proposed development is suited to an inner-city location due to its density and three-storey units.

    It will look very out-of-place in a suburb which is overwhelmingly single-storey detached housing. It is aestetically very unpleasant to see such a dense development of multi-storey housing and will look more like a slum than a quality, well-planned, well-designed addition to an up-and-coming suburb.

    As a retired school teacher, I am also conscious of the fact that this will adversely affect the school zoning and intake system currently operating and, as such, surely requires a very close analysis of whether the public schools to which the area is zoned (Charlestown East Primary and Whitebridge High) are able to effectively cater for the dramatic and sudden increase in population in the area.

    The Fernleigh Track is a very special feature of Newcastle/Lake Macquarie life and we should be mindful of preserving its beauty and tranquility after all the work, time and money that went into creating it. Whitebridge, as its highest point, is the most popular rest place and meeting place, with many people coming off the track to use the local cafes and shops as visitors to the area. A development such as the one proposed would make it an unpleasant spot to stop when using the track and this would negatively affect business in the area as well as destroying a growing tradition of incorporating your bike ride with a Whitebridge coffee stop.

    If this development goes ahead in its current form, a precedent will be set for other such inappropriate developments which will gradually but surely change the culture of our suburbs. We need to ensure that developments are an advantage to our residents, existing AND new, and that they positively contribute to the growth of our suburbs, rather than changing them in a negative, and irreversible, manner.

  37. Anne Walker commented

    I write with concern regarding the DA 1774/2013 by SNL Building Constructions Pty Ltd.

    I do not support the proposed development in it's current form on the basis of TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND PARKING PROBLEMS, particularly around the Whitebridge Shops on Dudley Road. The current parking space available at the Whitebridge shops is already at capacity on a daily basis, which is evidenced by over 20 cars parked on the vacant lot of land which is to be developed (usually utilised by staff members who work at the Whitebridge shopping precinct and customers using this overflow area at peek hours of the day). The planned parking spaces of the development is inadequate and needs to be substantially increased.

    If this land is developed without a substantial amount of parking for the community, in addition to the formal parking available at the shops, the current traffic congestion and parking issues will be exacerbated. From 3-4pm each day of the school term, it is often the case that traffic queues can bank up from the shops, across the Dudley Road roundabout and down Bullsgarden Road, Dudley Road and Waran Road. If density of housing, parking and residents increases at the Dudley Road development site, without substantial commitment to community parking, this section of road could likely become jammed on a daily basis as there are no alternate routes that by pass this roundabout intersection. If parking and traffic congestion becomes an issue, trade at the local shops could be compromised and this would threaten a key community asset.

    Whilst I support development of the local area, I believe this should be achieved in a socially sustainable manner and with forward planning for ample and much required community parking.

    Kind regards
    Anne Walker

  38. Luke Searles commented

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    I am writing concerning DA 1772-2013 proposed for Lonus Ave, Whitebridge and to express my concern and objection to this development. I live in Charlestown, however am regularly in Whitebridge for work and to visit family.

    I do not object to the development of this land, however this development is excessive and will be a detriment to Whitebridge and the surrounding areas.

    1. There are too many units planned for this space. This number of units in a small suburb will create a myriad of problems including higher crime rates, traffic congestion, pressure on amenities, pedestrian safety issues, to list just a few. It will look synonymous to a ghetto. Whitebridge is a small, quiet suburb which boasts a friendly community atmosphere and a thriving environmental landscape, both would be jeopardised by this development.
    The appropriate density zoning could still be achieved with far fewer units.

    2. This development will create traffic and parking problems resulting from 88 two-three bedroom units and several commercial properties. Whitebridge does not have the road systems, parking or infrastructure to cope with this many new cars to Dudley Road, Lonus Avenue, local shops and nearby streets.

    3. The development is poorly designed which is evidenced in the boxy, ‘dorm room’ style dwellings with no area between dwellings for large trees or gardens, no personal or communal space. The obvious inference is that this development has been planned to maximise profits through high density and low quality.

    I am hopeful that Lake Macquarie Council and the JRPP make a stand against this development and demand one that suits the local area and is not detrimental to it.

    Thank you,
    Luke Searles

  39. Lisa Dixon commented

    To Whom It May Concern,
    I write to voice my numerous concerns about SNL Building Constructions Pty Ltd proposed development in Whitebridge (DA No: 1774/2013):

    Firstly, that this development has proceeded this far without adequate community consultation or social impact assessment.

    Secondly, and more alarmingly, this development seems to ignore the significant effects that such a high density development will have on the surrounding traffic conditions, these effects include:
    i)the compounding of already existing traffic delays at peak times (most notably during school times).

    ii)inadequate access to the proposed development and surrounding areas for emergency vehicles due to traffic congestion, further compounded by the single road access to the site (the local bush fires last year were a timely reminder of the need for multiple and effective entries and exits to a site).

    iii) additionally, the increased traffic density must be considered in the context of Whitebridge as, increasingly, a major pedestrian hub due to the increased popularity of the Fernleigh Track and surrounding schools and shops - and as such pedestrian safety and crossing availability must be considered.

    For these reasons I am strongly of the belief that the development should not be allowed to proceed as currently proposed.

    Regards,
    Lisa Dixon.

  40. Donna Jamieson commented

    It is with grave concern that I write this letter regarding the future development on 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street Whitebridge NSW 2290 (DA number 1774/2013).
    It is my strong believe that a cluster of units can only lead to a ghetto style environment in the not so distant future. Whitebridge, and the surround area, is rich in historical culture that reflects the unique fabric which is the Whitebridge Community. To erect such a monstrosity will be blight on such a picturesque landscape – an environment that will for ever change.
    Why – why does the government feel that Whitebridge needs an influx of housing, people and vehicles when services are already stretch – surely other areas would benefit more.
    I don’t live in Whitebridge, so I’m not concerned about my house value my concern is the social well being of the Whitebridge Community and if such a development does go ahead a precedent will be set, a precedent that disregards community over development, profit and business.
    Once the mistake is made it cannot be undone.
    Yours sincerely
    Donna Jamieson

  41. Judith J Gray commented

    As a resident of Whitebridge I am writing to object to DA 1772-2013 in Whitebridge. I do not object to the development of this vacant land, however I have strong objections to this current proposal.
    I understand this land has been zoned ‘medium density’ and as such a certain number of dwellings are required to be built. The current proposal of 87 units plus commercial properties is an excessive number for such a small community. The zoning requirements could still be met with far fewer properties.
    Development needs to be “integrated with, rather than separating from existing surrounding development” (Section 5.3.3. Lake Macquarie City Council Lifestyle 2020 strategy). This development proposes wall to wall structures 2 – 3 storeys high, which would completely ‘separate’ the existing surrounding development as this type of structure is non-existent in the local area.
    The local amenities are already strained coping with the current population. Roads are extremely busy and dangerous, the Fernleigh track is often crowded and parking is insufficient. A development of this many units would exasperate these already existing problems.
    The social impact of such high density living in a small area would be disastrous. Residents would have little or no personal space, a lack of amenities and public transport to cope with their needs, extreme heat due to lack of greenery and poor building design, and extremely busy roads.

    These buildings need to be planned to integrate with the existing community, provide personal and communal green space, space in between dwellings for trees and privacy and ideally contribute to the local community, e.g. building of a park, new pathways, extra parking, upgrading of roads, etc.
    I sincerely hope the local community is consulted about this development in the future.

  42. Elon Alva commented

    In reference to DA 1774/2013

    I object to the proposal to build this medium density housing on these grounds

    a) Congestion on the roads, especially during school start and finish times
    b) Insufficient parking spaces
    c) Safety for pedestrians with increased traffic especially during school hours
    d) No/insufficient community consultation
    e) No independant studies to show the social impact for the area
    f) No independant studies to show environment and pollution impact for the area
    g) No independant studies to prove that there is sufficient infrastructure to support all the needs for the increased housing in the area
    h) No reason given why there is a need for medium density housing
    i) If the local council also objects to this proposal then the wishes of the council and the community should be respected

    PLEASE for the sake of the community and future generations - DO NOT approve this application

    Thanks for taking this into consideration

  43. Lydia Price commented

    26/1/2014
    Dear Sir/Madam,

    I am writing to express my concern and opposition to the proposed development DA 1772-2013 in Whitebridge. I have been a resident of Dudley and now live off Dudley Road in Charlestown. I am concerned about this development for a number of reasons as I am a frequent visitor of Whitebridge shops and community area.
    1. This development is far too dense and the buildings far too high for this area. I understand that the zoning requirements would still be met with far fewer residences. This type of development is suited to a city area rather than a quiet, leafy suburb. There are no other 3 storey dwellings in Whitebridge and as a result this development would be inconsistent with the local surroundings.

    Section 5.3.3 of the Lake Macquarie City Council Lifestyle 2020 document states “Compatible development is integrated with, rather than separating from existing surrounding development”. No other surrounding dwellings are as dense, as high or have such continuous shared walls. This current proposal couldn’t be further from ‘integrated’ with existing development.

    2. The social issues caused by this highly dense development would be devastating to the area. The social issues caused by such a large development in a small community are many;
    - So many people living ‘on top’ of each other will inevitably cause friction
    - Whitebridge does not have the resources or amenities to cope with such an influx of population
    - These units don’t have their own residential or communal space and residents, especially kids and teenagers, will be forced to spend time on the surrounding streets
    - The increase in traffic to already busy, narrow roads will cause an increase in accidents and congestion
    3. This development has no personal or communal land (green space). Whitebridge is known for its pristine environment, beautiful Fernleigh track and surrounding bush. Wall to wall dwellings with no green space is in direct contradiction to the environment that Lake Macquarie City Council has worked to maintain and preserve.
    This current proposal would be a blight on a wonderful area, I am hopeful that the LMCC and the JRPP will let common sense and good planning prevail over developer profits.

    Thank you,
    Lydia Price.

  44. Alec Roberts commented

    In reference to DA 1774/2013 by SNL Building Constructions Pty Ltd.

    To Whom It May Concern,

    Please note that I am not opposed to development of this site per se but to the scale and degree of development proposed in this DA.

    Amenity
    During my time I was living in Melbourne I have seen the construction of a number of medium density housing developments particularly in the Brunswick and Coburg areas. Apart from some increased parking issues in some streets these developments as a whole have increased the amenity of the area. These developments were usually limited to two storey townhouse cluster developments and were designed to be in keeping with the suburbs. Even after a number of years these developments still look good and are well looked after. In one case, developers decided to go with a more compact style using 2-3 storey terraces that obviously was going to allow more residences within the space. This was architect designed and showed initial promise placed between a heritage listed site and a park. However, it wasn’t long before the development had a tired look (even though it was developed after the others) with vandalism and graffiti evident in the development.

    There appears to be a tipping point between medium density developments that provide and continue to provide amenity to the local suburb and those that decrease amenity and become targets for vandalism within the community. Developments to the higher end of medium density fit into the latter category. This development in its current form is at the higher end of medium density (with 87 residences including 2-3 storey terraces) and I fear would lead to a decrease in amenity of the area and become a target for vandalism.

    Parking
    It appears from the DA included drawings that the offstreet parking includes residents’ driveways. This I do not believe would be acceptable to the residents and would impact on parking in the immediate area around the development.

    Visual Impact
    The DA notes that this development is within Scenic Management Zone – 7 (coastal edge, low settlement) of the Lake Macquarie Scenic Management Guidelines 2013. The guidelines state that the desired future character of this zone is to “Protect the dominant natural character of the coastline whilst allowing some sensitive modification”. It further states “Visual impacts of development should be managed through appropriate design, scale, built form, siting and the retention of trees and other natural features. Proposed future residential areas should be limited to ensure that the existing low development character is maintained” and “Any development within these areas is to satisfy the following guidelines: any buildings should be of a low scale and not dominant.” Moreover, the DA states under section 4.1.11 Visual Impact that “No significant public/private views will be significantly/unreasonably affected by the proposed development”.

    The proposed development does not adequately address the visual impacts with inappropriate design and scale. The development proposes three storey terraces immediately adjacent (20 metres) from the Fernleigh Track detracting from the natural amenity of this unique recreational trail. Furthermore a development of 87 residences could not be regarded as low scale and would dominate the local area.

    Conservation zone
    The DA states that a 20 metre conservation zone adjacent to the Fernleigh Track has been set aside as a wildlife corridor. It should be noted that this 20m is effectively halved at the southern end of the development (Dudley rd end) to allow for the inclusion of terraces fronting Dudley rd and a garden townhouse behind. This should have been clearly stated in the DA. Ten metres is not a sufficient width for a wildlife corridor and may not be considered an adequate building setback and buffer from the Fernleigh Track.

    Proposed changes
    The scale and degree of the development is too large and does not fit nor is in keeping within the local area. The size and in particular compactness of this development needs decreasing to allow it to effectively integrate and increase the amenity of the local area.

    The design of the townhouses and garden villas look promising, although some private side yards are about the width of a bath and probably need increasing if they are going to be useful to residents.

    To decrease the density of the development and help address the issue of visual impact stages 9 & 10 should be removed (13 3-storey terraces adjacent to the Fernleigh track) and perhaps replaced by the garden villas/townhouses or developed as additional space for the conservation zone.

    To address the reduced conservation zone the two storey terraces facing Dudley Rd in Stage 6 (terraces 4 & 5) and the garden townhouse (7) should be removed to allow the 20 metre conservation zone to run the length of the property development adjacent to the Fernleigh track.

    And finally, remove the Camphor Laurel tree next to Dudley Rd proposed to be kept and replace with a less invasive species (preferably native to this area).

    Thankyou for your time,

    Alec Roberts

  45. Linda Rees commented

    I agree with all the above concerns for the recently submitted plans to heavily develop
    DA-1774/2013, 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street Whitebridge.

    It is in our area's interest to make this land a piece of well designed housing for a reasonable number of residents, who will enjoy living in a healthy attractive well serviced community.

    Common sense shows that the original architect plan for 142 Dudley Road is unacceptable.

    Please don't allow Whitebridge and surrounds to become a densely populated area at the expense of quality living, for the people who will come and the population here already.

    Thank you for your time.

    Linda Rees

  46. Brooke Searles commented

    To Whom It May Concern,

    I am writing in regards to DA-1774/2013 proposed for Whitebridge.

    I grew up in Whitebridge and now live in neighbouring Charlestown East. My parents still live in our family home in Whitebridge and I am often in the area to visit my family, friends and the local shops.

    Whitebridge is a magnificent place to live and visit. Lake Macquarie City Council has played a significant role in restoring areas of historical significance and developing the Fernleigh Track, which is widely used by residents of the entire region, as well as preserving Glenrock reserve, Dudley Beach, etc. Unfortunately these areas may be under threat if this high density development is approved.

    The vacant land to be used by DA-1774/2013 should be developed. However, this proposal is excessive, in no way integrates with the local surrounds, and would be a disastrous addition to a small, coastal town.

    This level of housing density is befitting of a city or large town that has the resources, road infrastructure and amenities to cope with such an increase in population and traffic. My main objections to this DA are as follows;

    • The level of high density housing will inevitably create an array of social problems due to the poorly designed, cheap housing and a lack of resources, personal space, public transport and green space

    • Roads are already at capacity, with an increase of 200 or so vehicles they simply would not cope and would become a danger to drivers, cyclists and pedestrians

    • The Whitebridge village is now overcrowded, with not enough parking or space to accommodate the current growing population

    • This development offers no green space to integrate with the local surrounds, provide residents with areas to socialise and entertain, provide natural relief from heat and accommodate the multitude of local wildlife

    • The high density dwellings will inevitably cause drainage and storm water issues. The catchment storm water drain, alongside the Fernleigh Track, already overflows during heavy rain and with no green space to slow runoff this problem will be exasperated

    • The 2 – 3 storey, wall to wall dwellings will be an eyesore to the area and will visually separate and isolate from the local surrounds

    I hope that LMCC and the JRPP object to this overdevelopment, ensure community consultation is required and demand a quality development that complements and promotes this wonderful area.

  47. J. Davis commented

    I would like to register my opposition to the development in its current form for the following reasons:

    -The sheer size and density of the development which is inconsistent with the surrounding area.
    -The potential for hundreds of extra cars using an already congested section of local roads, particularly the intersections of Kopa Street and Lonus Avenue and Lonus Avenue and Dudley Road, increasing the risk for pedestrian safety, particularly school children and senior citizens.
    -The existing road infrastructure is inadequate to cope with the increase in traffic, with the Whitebridge roundabout already at capacity at peak times.
    -The Whitebridge shops car park is already at capacity for most of the day and the 4 proposed commercial premises will greatly increase the number of cars seeking parking.
    -Inadequate consultation with the community considering the size and density of the development.
    -The increase in the number of residents will have adverse impacts on the amenity, lifestyle and safety of existing and future residents.

  48. Lee J Currington commented

    To The General Manager, Lake Macquarie City Council
    Re : DA 1774/2013
    142 Dudley Rd WHITEBRIDGE 2290

    Dear Sir,
    I am writing to express my objection to this proposed development. I feel that when the land was rezoned 2.2 medium density that the general community were not aware that this would lead to a proposal like the one at hand.

    I also feel the developers have been very opportunistic using this technicality to integrate as many buildings as possible in the rezoned land.

    I know there is alarming traffic problems at Whitebridge at the moment. With no future infrastructure planned, another large subdivision of this proposals' nature on the fringe should not be acceptable by local council.

    I am also objecting to the placement of the 3 storey residential units. The only 9 x 4 bedroom Adaptable Garden Villas (AGV)'s share the common boundary with existing residents. This is a very poor planning decision which shows total lack of regard for the privacy and welfare of current residents.

    I feel there has been little to no planning for green space. If there are 3/4 bedroom villas constructed, they will be marketed towards families with children to reside in them. Where are recreation areas located? In Lake Macquarie in 2014 this is an important aspect of residential planning that the developer has overlooked and so needs to be addressed.

    There is many other unsuitable aspects to the development in its current form. I trust you have seen the number of objections to consider its abhorrence to the community at large. Please consider this as my formal objection of DA 1774/2013.

    Yours Sincerely,
    Lee Currington

  49. Sarah Blatchford commented

    I wish to lodge an objection to the proposed development at Whitebridge (DA 1772-2013). I grew up in Whitebridge and still live in nearby Charlestown East (my parents still reside in our family home in Whitebridge).
    The high density of the proposed development is completely unsuitable to this small, quiet suburb. Having so many 2 and 3 storey dwellings crowded into this space will inevitably cause several problems to this community:

    • Social issues. It is well documented that areas housing highly dense dwellings suffer from higher crime rates, vandalism, and social problems. These dwellings have no yards, parks, personal space or areas for socialising. Residents, especially youths, will have no space to spend their time outdoors aside from the street and public areas.

    • Lack of amenities. Whitebridge is a small suburb and, as such, has the amenities to cope with a small population.

    • No green space. This development has been planned with no green space, aside from the mandatory corridor alongside the Fernleigh track. This lack of green space is in complete contradiction to the bushy surrounds of the area, will radiate an enormous amount of heat, and will be an eyesore to the neighbourhood. These dwellings need to be built with personal green space for each residence and green space separating the dwellings. Ideally there should be communal space as well, such as a park or playground.

    • Traffic congestion. Whitebridge already suffers from traffic problems around the schools and shops as well as a shortage of parking. With another 300 car movements the busy intersections and carparks simply will not cope and will become a serious danger to drivers and pedestrians.

    Quantity over quality appears to have been a determining phrase during the planning of this development, however Whitebridge is a wonderful place to live and visit and is deserving of a development that will harmonise with the existing community and environment.

    I sincerely hope that these issues are taken into consideration

  50. Kristie Krainz commented

    To The Manager, LMCC - DA 1774/2013 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge

    I am writing to object to the proprosed over development at Whitebridge. As a Whitebridge resident, I am not opposed to the development of the land which is in line with the already existing Whitebridge area, but am opposed to this over development.

    There are a number of real problems with this proposal which need to be considered:

    Traffic Congestion - the exisiting traffic (and pedestrian traffic) in the area is already at capacity and the impact of extra traffic from the development has not been considered.
    Parking - the parking at the Whitebridge shops is already at capacity and the planned parking in the proposal is not sufficient for the area.
    Visual Impact - the development will look more like a housing commission area, and this mass development is not visually in line with the existing dwellings in the area.
    Impact on Facilities - the increase in residents will then impact the local facilities such as the local shops, park, day care facilities and schools. Can our local schools cope with the influx of more students?

    I trust that Council will make a common sense decision and decline this over development. The developer and Council should consider the effect this current proposal will have on the community and come to a resolution that will be consistent with the Whitebridge landscape.

  51. Ethan Bentley commented

    I would also like to raise my concerns about the development at 142 dudley road whitebridge.
    There has been many issues raised about traffic and population density.
    The current state of the intersection of Lonus Avenue and Dudley Rd is already overcrowded, especially in mornings and afternoons due to the addition of school traffic.

    For me personally this raises concerns about the safety of pedestrians in this area, particularly with adolescents who are attending Whitebridge high school.

    As well as the fact that there are very few dwellings in the Whitebridge area that are more than 2 stories high. This also has nothing to do with the amount of residents that you can fit into this area.
    IE: Less residents in total would be the way to achieve a common ground among the community.

    If this development were to go ahead in its current state then the impact of its new residents could potentially be indirectly dangerous to the youth of this area.

    Obviously some sort of development needs to occur on this land, however, I think that it should be scaled down due to the already overcrowded population density in this area.

  52. Rob and Anika Roohan commented

    If appropriate decision making and the concerns of residents are taken into consideration, the development of 142 Dudley Rd Whitebridge could provide an opportunity to create a residential and commercial space that can be a national leader in sustainable living. What is needed is the vision and confidence of the developers to acknowledge the environmental significance of the site and work alongside these factors, treating them as a positive prospect not a limitation. Improved community response, increased profit and environmental sustainability are all achievable if adequate planning is applied.

    The development requires a philosophy of a sustainable approach to the environment, as well as proper consideration of social and economic responsibilities to the wider community. The current plan in no way reflects the environmental and geographical significance of the area. Offering no sustainable creativity, relying on old and outdated methods of planning and architecture, the plan is over simplistic in its ideology of mass production. The proposal may succeed in a standard urban setting. Whitebridge is not a standard urban setting.

    Whitebridge is distinctive in its positioning as a link between Glenrock State Recreation Area and Awabakal Nature Reserve. This area is possibly the largest network of high quality coastal native vegetation in an “urbanised” area in NSW. The site in question forms the centrepiece in this green corridor. To develop in its current proposal will metaphorically be like clogging an artery.

    This corridor allows movement of wildlife between habitats to maintain their genetic diversity, which is critical for their survival and persistence into the future, especially in the face of future environmental change through climate change and other threats.

    The long-term viability of Glenrock State Conservation Area, Awabakal Nature Reserve and Belmont/Jewells Wetlands is dependent on surrounding areas of bushland remaining intact and being managed effectively. Any future development of the area has the potential to increase edge effects on these reserves, increase direct and induced impacts and management costs for conservation agencies and increase both impacts and risk for a large number of resident and migratory threatened and native species.

    The proposed development requires a complete re-think of how it can fit into the unique landscape, whilst at the same time remain viable and possibly even more profitable. If done correctly a national benchmark in sustainable development is achievable whilst possibly gaining international recognition.

    To achieve community support, a development that is reflective of the areas environmental significance is essential. Further professional consultancy in planning, design/architecture, product choice, sustainable features, environmental footprint reduction should be at the forefront of the developments future.

  53. Ian Harris commented

    To the General Manager LMCC in reference to DA1774/2013,

    Myself and my family are residents of Whitebridge and my child attends Whitebridge High School. I would like to voice my concerns for the development (over development) of 142 Dudley Road Whitebridge.

    The amount and size (3 storeys) of the dwellings is way too large for that site. It will produce many problems such as:
    ** Traffic congestion on streets and roads which include Dudley Road, Lonus Avenue, Kopa Street, Waran Road and Whitebridge roundabout especially with only having one entry and exit to the development on Kopa St.
    ** Parking problems at Whitebridge shops (which is already congested with limited parking spaces)

    All the traffic and parking problems will have a huge impact on safety related concerns with residents, school children and fernleigh track users (pushbikes, prams, elderly walkers and kids) Also other people who use the childcare centre, tennis courts and adjoining park/oval which is used for cricket and other sports will be faced these problems

    This type of development is totally out of character with the surrounding village and will have a massive, negative impact on the community.

    The land needs to be developed so it can be a part and an asset of Whitebridge and the surrounding areas. In its present design it wont be. To do this we need a development with less amount of units that are aesthetically pleasing with more open, green spaces and parking.

    Thank you for hearing SOME of my many concerns.
    Ian, Yvette and Sharna Harris

  54. Carmen Kolisnyk commented

    28th January, 2014 Carmen Kolisnyk
    10 Hudson Street,
    Whitebridge, NSW, 2290

    The General Manager,
    Lake Macquarie City Council,
    PO Box 1906
    Hunter Region Mail Centre
    NSW 2310.

    Re: DA 1774/2013
    Address: 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street, Whitebridge. NSW 2290.
    Applicant's Name: SNL Building Constructions Pty. Ltd.
    Sir/Madam,

    In reference to the above application I would like to voice my deep concerns in regards to the development of this site in its current form. I strongly object to this over development by SNL.

    As a resident of Whitebridge, I was both stunned and disappointed that the LMCC had re-zoned the Whitebridge area with what seems like very little, if any, consultation with LMCC residents.

    TRAFFIC IMPACT
    The proposed development that SNL have put forward is so very much out of character with the existing area. There is already existing traffic and parking problems that have become more dangerous by the fencing off of what was a communal parking area and more importantly a recreation area for families and community residents.

    No community consultation on traffic problems which local community has knowledge of.

    Lonus Ave and Waran Road will be overloaded with vehicle movements. An entry/exit onto Lonus Ave at peak points will exacerbate the problems and impact on pedestrian safety and congestion.

    SOCIAL IMPACT
    If this is a medium density development I would hate to see their plans for high density. So many people crammed into such a small area are just wrong and unfair to us, the residents of Whitebridge and also to the ‘new residents’ of this ‘estate’.

    Pedestrian safety for mothers with children, school children and the elderly will be severely compromised, as well as access to Birralee Long Day Care Centre, Whitebridge High School, Whitebridge Tennis Court, bus stops and, Whitebridge shops.
    Access to Whitebridge Shops from the Hudson Street/Station Street end will be significantly extended over a less secure pathway along roadside and travel over a narrow bridge footpath.

    The physical/visual impact of this development will be imposing in relation to the existing low level housing. A 3D model has not been made available to the public, which would give residents a clearer more concise vision of this over development.

    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
    There is very little ‘green space’ and no provision for recreational facilities for the residents, especially teenagers and children. This fact alone has been shown to lead to future antisocial behaviour.

    The Ecological corridor (Environmental Conservation Zoned Land) will be used as the developments own private green space. In SNL‘s Landscape Master Plan only ten (10) native species are mentioned. There should be a minimum of thirty (30) native species in this corridor to increase its biodiversity. Non-native and native, not local species have been selected for the individual development areas which is not acceptable. These non-native species could become invasive.

    If a turning circle at the end of Kopa Street is permitted the mature trees in this location will be removed which is in conflict with SNL’s Arborist report.

    Progress is necessary for any community to advance and grow - but this ‘progress’ should
    never be at the expense of the existing community.

    Yours Sincerely
    Carmen Kolisnyk

  55. Ben commented

    Re: DA 1774/2013
    Address: 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street, Whitebridge. NSW 2290.
    Applicant's Name: SNL Building Constructions Pty. Ltd.
    To Whom It May Concern,

    Firstly I would like to state that I am not against development in Whitebridge. I do believe that development, and in particular the use of this parcel of land, could be of great value to the current community and future generations of this area. However, I feel that the Development Application in its current form is pushing the allowed zoning to its limits and if approved will be an eyesore and burden to the community for decades to come.

    I strongly believe that there are statistical anomalies within the traffic survey in particular relating to the number of vehicles using Lonus Ave during peak periods. The intersection of Dudley Road and Lonus Ave during school drop off and pick up times is extremely busy often resulting heavy congestion at the Whitebridge roundabout. If the development was to proceed in its current form this will only add to this issue.

    The aesthetic appeal of the proposed dwellings also appears more suited to an inner city landscape rather than a suburban community that mainly consists of detached low/medium density dwellings.

    The adjacent shopping village currently has a severe lack of available parking since the developer erected the temporary fence around the proposed site. Although the development has included parking for its commercial aspect I don't believe it will cater for the increase in patronage considering the current parking is insufficient.

    I trust that the council will listen to the overwhelming dissatisfaction of local residents and force the developers to align its application with the greater community’s interests in mind.

    Regards

    Ben Judd

  56. Rainer Heigl commented

    As a resident of the Dudley/Whitebridge area, I oppose the current development application regarding Dudley Road/Kopa Street Whitebridge by SNL Building Constructions Pty Ltd.

    The proposed development would change the feel of our community and would be in wild contrast to the existing community.

    The density of the proposed development would lead to traffic congestion, parking and safety issues.

    Currently there are already periods of parking shortage at Whitebridge shops.
    The central Whitebridge area is small and would not functioning with an adjacent 87 residential units jammed against it.

  57. Anne-Marie Abell commented

    I wish to formally lodge my objection to the proposed development for DA1774/2013. Whilst I am not opposed to development of this land, I am totally opposed to the current plan for this development.

    The development in it's current form concerns me greatly because:

    In 1998 I purchased 126 Dudley Road, Whitebridge and in 2005 I moved from this property as a direct result of the amount of traffic travelling along Dudley Road and the danger I faced every day entering and exiting my driveway. I understand this road is classed as an arterial road, a high-capacity urban road linking suburbs to main roads and every year the traffic volume increases. This development will certainly add to this increase and I fear for the safety of others living on this road and others who live in the area who use this road to commute. More so though, I fear for the safety of my family and everyone who frequents the shopping centre, doctors; day care; park; tennis courts; bus stops; high school, etc, etc as the layout of this area does not lend itself to even the current amount of traffic. As for the adjoining roads of Warran Road and Lonus Avenue, well you only have to visit there on a morning and/or afternoon to see the traffic jams, pedestrian near misses and accidents that regularly occur.

    Another concern I have is the size and density of this development. I attended the meeting last weekend and was told that this development is to be family focused. I'm unsure how this will work as I don't think I know of any family that would want to live in a unit with no outdoor area, only one car space (most families have at least two vehicles), no visitor parking, no recreational facilities; and a 'token' green area? As for the parking issue, well that's a no brainer - parking is an issue now around this area without these extra vehicles and their visitor's vehicles, this development will definitely escalate parking issues to beyond breaking point.

    In a nutshell, this development is not in keeping with the surrounding area and in it's current form, should not be approved.

    I trust that common sense will prevail (and not the mighty dollar!).

  58. Karen Cotton & Rod Green commented

    I am writing to express my concern with the current development application for 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge. We live locally and pass through this area multiple times per day. If the development is approved in it's current state, I am concerned about the following:

    * The sheer size of this development and the negative visual impact it will have;
    * Pedestrian safety, especially the school children and the elderly;
    * Increased traffic congestion = more accidents;
    * Already congested parking; and
    * The social and environmental impact on the beautiful community of Whitebridge.

    This land could host a beautiful development, but the one planned, is definitely not it!

  59. William Abell commented

    I am a student of Whitebridge High School and I object to the current development application because it is NOT suited to the area and there are already too many cars which makes it very dangerous getting to and from school and the shops at Whitebridge.

  60. Maxine de Carvalho commented

    I strongly oppose this development in its current form.
    While I believe we all have the right to make money from our assets - we don't have the rights to do this to the detriment of others - this development is far too extreme for the area.
    I agree with other objections already raised here. This proposal is far too high density for the area. We have to keep our suburbs just that. Quiet suburbs. Cram 87 families into an area the size of a footy field (maybe 2) and you are asking for trouble. Apparently these are to be 3 - 4 bed dwellings. - That's a lot of people not to mention cars. Not enough parking - not enough privacy - not enough space.
    The over 55's development in Bulls Garden Road has 24 properties and a good portion of those have to 2 cars. I think the traffic study grossly underestimates the number of traffic movements per property. We already have cars banked up across the roundabout at times trying to gain access to the shopping car park.
    I don't think the developers are serious about the development at this density - just preparing the way for negotiation for a smaller number of properties. Perhaps if they aimed at half the proposed number, say 45, the current residents in the area would be more amenable.

  61. Desiree Sheehan and Jack Baldwin commented

    Whilst not opposed to development, we are concerned about the density of this development which will inevitably impact in a negative way on the suburb, community and lifestyle we cherish, in particular:

    1. Sustainability - This development will unavoidably place an enormous strain on an already over taxed natural environment. In addition, we are concerned about the capacity of the area to be able to sustain such a large development including the increase in rubbish removal, water and sewerage requirements, and overall style of living in the Whitebridge community.

    2. Ecology - We are extremely concerned about the impact of this development on the local flora and fauna in the area, in particular around the green corridor of the Fernleigh track.

    3. Density - The proposal is for 87 residences crammed into a relatively small land area. We are concerned about the ensuing social issues, increased traffic congestion and ambient noise, rubbish and also the impact of such a large development on the adjoining areas including the Fernleigh Bike track and Dudley Beach.

    4. Traffic congestion - The intersection of Lonus Ave, Bulls Garden Road, Waran Road & Dudley Road has an existing traffic congestion problem. With the associated traffic that will be added to the area, coupled with a very limited public transport system (322 bus line) we are concerned that the area will become a bottle neck during peak times.

    Access into Whitebridge is limited to only a few streets. We are also concerned that an adequate study has not been undertaken as to the impact of the 87 residences and associated cars, in our area.

    5. Parking issue - Parking at the Whitebridge shops is at capacity. We are concerned that this area will become another traffic bottleneck and a potential risk to walkers/ school children.

    Footpaths around this area are limited, and with visibility to the shops even via the carpark already a high risk area, we are concerned about the impact of even more cars using this area without adequate consideration given.

    In summation, this planned development as it stands is entirely undesirable. It is not in keeping within the Whitebridge community.

    We ask that Lake Macquarie City Council stands by its commitment to sustainability and its communities, and uses its influence on the Joint Regional Planning panel to limit the development to ensure that it is more in keeping with Whitebridge – before it’s too late!

  62. Peter and Brenda Layzell commented

    To the General Manager, Lake Macquarie City Council
    Re: DA 1774/2013
    Subject: Follow up submission on behalf of LAYZELL

    Dear Sir,

    We would like to put forward a second submission in regards to this development application. As residents that live on Lonus Avenue, we have been finding the amount of dust and traffic fumes to be increasing all the time. We are becoming concerned for not only ourselves but for the health implications of the babies and children within the child care centre opposite. Have there been any pollution studies done in regards to the excessive traffic in such close proximity to a child care centre? The building has windows that are very close to the roadside. The dust and car fumes from traffic that sits idle along the length of Lonus Ave and Waran Rd five days a week must be negatively impacting on not only the existing residents but the families who frequent the Birralee Child Care Centre. This traffic road dust will only increase along Lonus Ave if the current DA submission is granted.

    Thank you for taking our concerns into consideration,

    P.J and B Layzell.

  63. Peter and Brenda Layzell commented

    To the General Manager, Lake Macquarie City Council
    Re: DA 1774/2013
    Subject: Follow up submission on behalf of LAYZELL

    Dear Sir,

    We would like to put forward a second submission in regards to this development application. As residents that live on Lonus Avenue, we have been finding the amount of dust and traffic fumes to be increasing all the time. We are becoming concerned for not only ourselves but for the health implications of the babies and children within the child care centre opposite. Have there been any pollution studies done in regards to the excessive traffic in such close proximity to a child care centre? The building has windows that are very close to the roadside. The dust and car fumes from traffic that sits idle along the length of Lonus Ave and Waran Rd five days a week must be negatively impacting on not only the existing residents but the families who frequent the Birralee Child Care Centre. This traffic road dust will only increase along Lonus Ave if the current DA submission is granted.

    Thank you for taking our concerns into consideration,

    P.J and B Layzell.

  64. T Judd commented

    Re: DA 1774/2013
    Address: 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street, Whitebridge. NSW 2290.
    Applicant's Name: SNL Building Constructions Pty. Ltd.

    To Whom It May Concern,

    I strongly oppose the proposed development for a variety of reasons, in particular the areas ability to cope with the additional traffic resulting from a medium density development and the impact this increase in traffic will have on the safety of local residents and children.

    Typically medium density developments are situated in locations that are well resourced by public transport and other facilities/ infrastructure, such as the inner city or close to transport hubs. Such proximity to transport infrastructure and services would therefore reduce the dependency on cars by the residents of the development. This however is not the case in Whitebridge. The bus service, while functional, is hardly capable of servicing the diverse needs of an additional 87 households therefore it is highly likely each of these households may have up to 3 vehicles. On this basis, we are looking at potentially 261 additional vehicles using Kopa Street an Lonus Avenue, most probably at peak time.

    I walk my 4.5 year old daughter and a 1 year old in a pram to preschool along Lonus Avenue. In it's current situation the traffic congestion at school hours can at times be dangerous. Crossing at any point along Lonus Avenue can be difficult, even at the designated crossing point (not a pedestrian crossing) I often have to run to make it across between vehicles. Given there are 2 preschools either on Lonus Avenue, or in close proximity to it, combined with a public playground, tennis court and cricket ground, adding additional traffic to these areas will make these facilities difficult and at times unsafe to access.

    I believe the development should have 2 entry/ exit points, with one on Dudley Road to reduce the traffic burden. A roundabout or traffic lights would be required as the traffic exiting from the shopping complex often have difficulty and cut across or pull into traffic dangerously. Additional pressures on traffic congestion resulting from the development would only make the situation worse.

    Regards,
    T Judd

  65. Nicole Gintings commented

    To Whom It May Concern,

    As a local resident I would like to express my objection to the proposed development in Whitebridge DA-1772-2013. I do not object to the development of this vacant land, however I believe this is an over-development and does not integrate with the existing surrounds, as per Lake Macquarie City Council's Lifestyle 2030 strategy.

    I object for the following specific reasons;

    * The traffic and parking congestion will be pushed to a dangerous level with the addition of 87 new dwellings all exiting onto Lonus Avenue, with preschools, day cares, high school, sporting fields, childrens' park, etc. along the same 'dead-end' road. There have already been accidents involving children and many close calls and as my children will be walking to and attending Whitebridge highschool this is a major concern for me. The lack of adequate and efficient public transport ensures that most of these dwellings will be adding an additional 2 or 3 cars to the neighbourhood.

    * The aesthetics of this development do not in any way integrate with the surrounding environment. There are no 3 storey dwellings in the area and it will create a concrete eyesore. This design is far more suited to an inner city area rather than a suburban village. The units should be a MAXIMUM of 2 storey and have less dwellings attached along a single wall, to attempt to create some harmony with its village and natural surrounds.

    * There is no green space in this entire development, aside from the mandatory (minimum) nature corridor along the Fernleigh Track. Again this creates total disharmony with the existing surrounds, raises concerns about storm water runoff, creates a massive power usage using air conditioners to compensate the masses of concrete and clothes dryers as there is no room to hang washing, and once again creates a visual eyesore.

    LMCC and the JRPP have an opportunity to influence what could be a remarkable development promoting the beautiful environment and community that Whitebridge and the local area have to offer. I sincerely hope common sense prevails and the future of this area is paramount to your decision.

    Thank you,
    N. Gintings

  66. Nicole Gintings commented

    To Whom It May Concern,

    As a local resident I would like to express my objection to the proposed development in Whitebridge DA-1772-2013. I do not object to the development of this vacant land, however I believe this is an over-development and does not integrate with the existing surrounds, as per Lake Macquarie City Council's Lifestyle 2030 strategy.

    I object for the following specific reasons;

    * The traffic and parking congestion will be pushed to a dangerous level with the addition of 87 new dwellings all exiting onto Lonus Avenue, with preschools, day cares, high school, sporting fields, childrens' park, etc. along the same 'dead-end' road. There have already been accidents involving children and many close calls and as my children will be walking to and attending Whitebridge highschool this is a major concern for me. The lack of adequate and efficient public transport ensures that most of these dwellings will be adding an additional 2 or 3 cars to the neighbourhood.

    * The aesthetics of this development do not in any way integrate with the surrounding environment. There are no 3 storey dwellings in the area and it will create a concrete eyesore. This design is far more suited to an inner city area rather than a suburban village. The units should be a MAXIMUM of 2 storey and have less dwellings attached along a single wall, to attempt to create some harmony with its village and natural surrounds.

    * There is no green space in this entire development, aside from the mandatory (minimum) nature corridor along the Fernleigh Track. Again this creates total disharmony with the existing surrounds, raises concerns about storm water runoff, creates a massive power usage using air conditioners to compensate the masses of concrete and clothes dryers as there is no room to hang washing, and once again creates a visual eyesore.

    LMCC and the JRPP have an opportunity to influence what could be a remarkable development promoting the beautiful environment and community that Whitebridge and the local area have to offer. I sincerely hope common sense prevails and the future of this area is paramount to your decision.

    Thank you,
    N. Gintings

  67. Danny de Carvalho commented

    To The General Manager
    Re DA:1774/2013
    142-146 Dudley Rd & 2-4 Kopa St
    Whitebridge NSW 2290

    As a local resident I object to the proposed development in its current configuration.
    I have been involved in real estate nearly all my life and the size and scope of this development is beyond me.
    There is not enough provision for open space and the space that is allocated is ridiculous
    every property is a multi -level configuration
    No single level properties for older people or disabled.
    Not enough provision for visiting cars
    Not enough car parking for the intending residents
    Majority of properties run North west/southeast no use of the northern aspect
    The number of properties would be a social nightmare
    Thank you for allowing my input.

    Regards
    Danny de Carvalho

  68. Mark Bentley commented

    The developers here do have a right to make a profit however they do not have that right if it is detrimental to others.
    I am concerned that if this proposal goes ahead it is going to devalue my property, and everyone else in the near vicinity, of course this will be of no concern to the developer as they will be long gone with their pockets full.
    I do believe however i would have the right to sue the developer, perhaps the threat of class action suit will see them make a better decision for the development of this land.
    We can only hope the members of this decision board have been to common sense school, seems that is lacking a fair bit nowadays.

  69. Kathryn R commented

    I believe this application should not be approved as the developer has not considered many impacts on the Whitebridge and greater community in general.

    As a member of the local community I feel the compacted density of this development is not in keeping with the surrounding current housing. This area is already very congested during work day peak hours, as well as "school day" peak hours, and the addition of over 80 homes will only negatively impact on this issue.

    The lack of green space and disregard for native planting (in an area that is adjacent to a green corridor) is also a great concern. This development has not commenced, and already the access to the Fernleigh track at Whitebridge is impeded.

    As a parent my other concern is why is there no allowance for recreational facilities for the residents of this development? Children (and adults, for that matter) need recreational space, which seems to be overlooked in this development.

    My concerns for this development are many and varied. This development needs to consider the environmental, social and traffic impact that this large build will involve before it begins.

  70. linda berry commented

    1. Traffic congestion/Infrastructure
    87 dwellings, in addition to 4 new commercial outlets would increase the traffic congestion particularly at the roundabout on Dudley Road. This intersection is already extremely busy in the mornings and afternoons with buses, High School traffic, and people accessing the current shopping centre.

    The Kopa Street cul-de-sac as sole entry/exit would require at least another roundabout to cope with traffic, and would be problematic as an emergency exit in case of fire. Congestion at this point would daily risk the safety of toddlers, children, and adults accessing Pre School, day care, High School, and recreational facilities (Fernleigh track, tennis courts and the playground).

    2. Suburb Amenity
    The site has been open space for over 60 years and in regular use by the community both for recreation and as a safe and practical access way between East and West Whitebridge only bypassed by a dangerous narrow path over the bridge. The rural character of the suburb of Whitebridge would be destroyed if infrastructure is drastically altered to cope with traffic.

    3. Environmental
    The site has partial zoning designated for Conservation. This functions as a connection to the wider green corridor linking Glenrock State Conservation Reserve to Awabakal Nature Reserve and will need guidance from LMC Landcare experts to protect its viability in the corridor.

    The row of 3-level dwellings running North-South across the site blocks sea-breeze and view-corridors previously enjoyed by Whitebridge residents West of the block. Moreover, the occupants of this row would openly face West and unless double-glazed cost much to cool in summer, and without solar power! The row of 2-level dwellings on the Western side of the development would cause total loss of privacy currently owned by their Lonus Avenue neighbours.

    4. Perimeters
    The Eastern edge requires thoughtful protection for its green corridor, the Western border requires its minimum space to the fence-line and attention to drainage. The Northern boundary would be improved by less fencing and more open green space, more blend between inside and out of the site. The Southern boundary needs vehicular access to Dudley Rd, at least one-way. Preferably there would be a North-South pedestrian pathway through the site.

  71. Leigh Donegan commented

    To the General Manager,

    I am a resident of Whitebridge, myself and my young family live on the Fernleigh track about 100m from this proposed development site.

    We frequently use the Whitebridge shop area and our children attend the local school.

    We are deeply concerned about the density of this development and the ability for the local infrastructure to cope.

    We understand that this land needs to be developed, but would like to see less houses on this block to allow everyone in the community to still enjoy the Whitebridge area.

    We feel the plans as they currently stand are inconsistent with the surrounding area.

    I would like to see users of the Fernleigh track be able to access the Whitebridge Shops in a safe manner without having to cross the narrow bridge and busy roads.

    Currently after approximately 4pm on weekdays it is very difficult to get a park at Whitebridge shops and I'm concerned the shop area will be used as overflow for resident parking due to the large number of proposed houses on this site with minimal off-street parking.

    We often walk our children to the park at Whitebridge (near the tennis courts) and I'm concerned about there being a less secure pathway to the park due to the large increase in traffic movements.
    Currently this park is also often like Whitebridge shops, at full capacity. We need more park area and equipment if this development is to go ahead.

    Has the development accounted for the peak hour traffic levels on Lonus Avenue, Whitebridge roundabout and Whitebridge shops car park entry?
    It's already heavily congested in the afternoons.

    Kind Regards,

    Leigh Donegan

  72. Nathan tutton commented

    I strongly oppose the proposed development at Dudley Road and Kopa Street, Whitebridge.

    This development will substantially increase the danger for pedestrians in the Whitebridge area. I regularly walk, with my 1 year old daughter, to the shops and park. This possibility of accessing shops amenities without the need to drive was a strong drawcard for us in choosing to live in this area. We walk from Station Street, where we live, and then along Dudley Road. Dudley Road is already very busy and not pedestrian-friendly. I feel very concerned about the safety of walking to the shops and park if this development goes ahead, given the substantial increase in traffic which will occur.

    I am also concerned about the noise pollution which will occur as a result of this increase in traffic AND of the dramatic increase in the number of people who will suddenly be living opposite us, in extremely close proximity. The level of noise as a result of the amount of cars, airconditioners, tvs, music, voices etc that will eminate from a development of that type will definitely have an adverse impact on the residents of Whitebridge.

    This development is in stark contrast to the family-friendly atmosphere of Whitebridge, which is another reason we chose this area in which to live. This type of development, which involves so many people living in such a confined area, promotes an unfamiliar and suspicious vibe, where residents can not easily know and become acquainted with other members of their community. It has a strong possibility of becoming an ”us” and ”them” mentality, whereby you live in ”the development” or you live in the ”normal” parts of the suburb. This will not support a cohesive community atmosphere and could breed tension and resentment.

    This development will look extremely out-of-place as Whitebridge is predominately single storey detached houses. There is nothing else like this in the area and it will not ’gel’ well with the existing surroundings.

  73. Tracey Tutton commented

    I strongly oppose the proposed development at Dudley Road and Kopa Street, Whitebridge.

    This development will substantially increase the danger for pedestrians in the Whitebridge area. I regularly walk, with my 1 year old daughter, to the shops and park. This possibility of accessing shops amenities without the need to drive was a strong drawcard for us in choosing to live in this area. We walk from Station Street, where we live, and then along Dudley Road. Dudley Road is already very busy and not pedestrian-friendly. I

    I am extremely concerned about the proposed development at Dudley Rd and Kopa St, Whitebridge.

    Traffic congestion will be a significant problem, especially along Lonus Avenue and at the roundabout, and especially during school drop-off and pick-up times, where there are already long delays.

    It seems very unreasonable that the only proposed entry and exit points for a development of that size is via Kopa Street, which links to Lonus Avenue, and Lonus Avenue is the street used for Whitebridge High School, Whitebridge Preschool in Tumpoa Street AND Birralee Long Day Care Centre. All of these also link to the roundabout.

    I feel very concerned about even walking with my one-year old daughter to the park if this development was to go ahead, and, in the future, walking to the preschool with the need to cross and walk along these roads if that level of traffic will be present. This seems very out-of-character to have this level of traffic attempting to move around a suburb.

    Additionally, it is already becoming very difficult at times, and dangerous, to turn from Station Street, where I live, on to Dudley Road due to the traffic passing though on its way to Redhead and Dudley. This will only worsen if the development attempting to accommodate such a high number of people was to go ahead.

    Dropping into the shops on your way home from work will become a thing of the past, as parking problems will inevitably arise as current parking places, of which there are already too few, will be taken over for the development. This will also place more pressure, traffic and congestion onto Dudley Road as people attempt to find parks there instead.

    The Fernleigh Track will also be affected, as it will lose a lot of its beauty and tranquility at this Whitebridge stop and will discourage cyclists, walkers and joggers from making Whitebridge shops and cafes their destination. This will adversley affect businesses in the area.

    Finally, this development will look very unattractive and will not match its surroundings. It has the potential to become the embarrassment of Whitebridge, which will become known for its ugly, out-of-place development rather than for its pleasant, community vibe.

  74. Tim Woicek commented

    I am a resident of Redhead and work in Charlestown. I drive or ride a bike along Dudley Road regularly and am a frequent user of the Fernleigh Track. My reasons for opposing DA1774/2013 are many and have been put forth very well by many. Briefly, here are a few: loss of green space, traffic congestion, inadequate allowance for new residents' parking needs and inadequate open space within the development. It appears that greed, and not the good of the community, is the primary motivation of the developer.
    Thanks for your consideration,

    Tim Woicek

  75. Phillipa Parsons commented

    Re: Submission on DA 1774/2013 - 142 Dudley Road WHITEBRIDGE NSW 2290

    I am a resident of Charlestown East and a teacher at Whitebridge High School where my son attends in Year 8. I consider myself part of the wider Whitebridge community and shop regularly at the village. I am also a regular user of the Fernleigh Track, entering from both sides of the Whitebridge station. I wish to register my opposition to the proposed development at Kopa Street, Whitebridge for the following reasons:

    • An objective of Zone R3 is to enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

    This development does not provide sufficient open space or common areas for residents’ particularly children and young people, to congregate, recreate and generally enjoy being outside. There is no ‘kick a ball’ space for children and from the plans it appears that neither will there be sufficient ‘yard’ area in any of the dwellings to allow children room to run around in a safe and secure environment. Further, there is no safe and secure environment for teenagers to gather – no common area in which to congregate.

    • An objective of Zone R3 is to maintain and enhance the residential amenity and character of the surrounding area.

    This development, in its current form, is inconsistent with the immediate and wider surrounds. It fails to offer any enhancement of the current amenity and character by nature of the density and size of the dwellings. Further, its appearance is not aesthetically pleasing, and it fails to offer any pleasant interface between it and surrounding homes and the Fernleigh Track. Indeed, this development will result in a loss of connectivity from the shopping village and the Fernleigh Track, forcing track users to deviate onto roadways to access the shopping village. This may result in a loss of business to the local shops and cafes and would be detrimental to the relaxed character of the area, especially on weekends. This development is inconsistent with Lake Macquarie Council’s goal to provide ‘Quality Lifestyle’ for existing and future residents, regardless of the zoning.

    .

    • Does this development proposal meet the aims of S.1.3 from the LM DCP 2013, specifically with regard to meeting the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development?
    The principles underpinning ecologically sustainable development that should be used to guide decision making and actions include:
    • The precautionary principle.
    • Intergenerational equity.
    • Biodiversity and ecological diversity.
    • Improved economic valuation including environmental factors
    The lack of open space to recreate and relax outside is detrimental to the wellbeing of the future residents, adults, children and young people. Has a precautionary principle been applied here in ensuring the safety, happiness and wellbeing of future generations? As current community members we need to ensure future developments in our community will provide not only a living space but contribute to a healthy, functional community for future members. The density of the proposed development will not facilitate the growth of a vibrant neighbourhood – it will create a dense, concrete mini-suburb with an absence of a common area in which residents can meet, BBQ and get to know one another.

    Has consideration been given to developing social capital? How will future residents develop this as a community of people? What opportunities will the future residents have to build their communal network in the absence of any communal space? How will future residents integrate into the established community? This proposed development, in its current form, will not contribute to the social economic valuation of the existing community.

    • There has been a lack of consultation between the developer and the community.

    A development of this size and density will have a major impact on the amenity and character of Whitebridge. The developer has failed to properly consult with key stakeholders – the community and the business owners in the shopping village. A complete disregard of community has been demonstrated and as a result the developer does not have any social licence to proceed with this in its current form. The lack of consultation has resulted in massive opposition from the community, both Whitebridge and surrounding suburbs as the shopping village is a hub for those who would prefer to avoid the busy Charlestown Square. The developer has underestimated the community and their interest in what happens within their community. Had a more extensive consultation process been undertaken, the developer may have reached a suitable compromise, gained social licence and ensured the happiness and wellbeing of existing and future residents.

  76. Carmen McCartney commented

    A summary of my submission to The General Manager, Lake Macquarie City Council about DA 1774/2013 at 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street, Whitebridge NSW is as follows:

    Wildlife Corridor – Proposed Development Exacerbates Bottleneck at Whitebridge
    The vegetation adjacent to and within this proposed development represents a corridor that may be critical to the movement, dispersal and interchange of genetic material of threatened species from Glenrock State Conservation Area, the Awabakal Nature Reserve and Jewells Wetland. The specific section of “corridor” at the proposed development site needs to be conserved, enhanced and managed to ensure that it is functional.

    Summary of Issues:
    1) No consultation with critical local stakeholders and wildlife corridor experts including Office of Environment and Heritage; Parks and Great Eastern Ranges Initiative and independent local expert ecologists at the time of this development proposal or at the time of rezoning as shown in Planning Proposal Draft Amendment No. 53 to Lake Macquarie LEP 2004 (East Charlestown Bypass – Stage One .

    SUGGESTED ACTION: Consultation with the appropriate agency and landscape managers of Glenrock State Conservation Area and the Awabakal Nature Reserve to ensure that the rezoning and this proposed development promotes the enhancement of necessary corridor linkages and ensures no fragmentation of populations and habitat.

    2) The Lake Macquarie Native Vegetation and Corridors Map prepared by Lake Macquarie City Council shows that at the development site there is a “Crossing Point” a “Rehabilitation Corridor” and a “Corridor narrowed to less than 200m” yet there appears to be no documentation that further defines the corridors, identifies their functions on a local scale and examines faunal dispersal through these corridor regions. This type of survey should have been carried out for local threatened species at the time of “Charlestown Bypass Rezoning” and for this development application.

    SUGGESTED ACTION: Council to provide a detailed local on ground site assessment at the development site to identify the function of these three corridor zones on local scales (preferably over a year to monitor animal movement and in conjunction with Glenrock and Awabakal land managers). Results from this assessment should then be used to ensure the “conservation zone” in the proposed development does in fact enable viability and movement along the identified corridor zones and crossing of fauna at both the Dudley and Kopa ends of the development.

    3) In the proposed development, the “conservation zone” is zoned 7(2) Conservation Secondary (or E2) however, the Landscape Master Plan and Bushfire Plan does not propose conditions that are conducive to a viable corridor or meet E2 conditions such as “Conserve, enhance and manage corridors to facilitate species movement, dispersal, and interchange of genetic material.”

    SUGGESTED ACTION: Amend the development proposal Landscape Masterplan and Bushfire Threat Assessment APZs with the assistance of local land managers and ecologists to ensure that a viable corridor with necessary crossings is regenerated, expanded and maintained to the Zone 7(2)/E2 specifications. Include a yearly assessment of the area by a council ecologist to ensure the corridor has been maintained and is functional.

    Background information supporting my concerns and suggested actions can be found in my complete submission document at www.apptracking.lakemac.com.au 1774/2013
    Sincerely
    Carmen McCartney

  77. Sharna Harris commented

    I am a Year 9 student at Whitebridge High School and would like to voice my concerns over this development.

    I live on Lonus Avenue very close to Kopa Street and I think that the fact there is only one road leading in and out will greatly affect this community in a negative way. Already the traffic on a school day is ridiculous. When I walk to and from school there is constant traffic and on some days I can walk faster than the cars are driving (or not driving when it gets bad enough).

    On days when it is raining and I need to travel by car it is almost impossible for our car to get in and out of our driveway in the morning let alone in the afternoon when everyone leaves school at once.

    It is incredibly dangerous to have schoolkids and young children walking through this kind of traffic especially considering that two boys from my school were hit last year, it makes me worry about mine and my peers safety.

  78. Neil and Colleen Haddow commented

    We have been residents of East Lake Macquarie for 30 years. We believe that this proposed development is totally unsuitable for this location.
    It would significantly impact on the current social, environmental and safety aspects of this Whitebridge Community and surrounding suburbs of Redhead, Dudley and Kahibah.
    The area now is saturated with traffic at peak times, making it particularly dangerous for school children, shoppers, elderly and all users of this area.

  79. Catherine James commented

    To Whom It May Concern,

    I am writing to register my concern and objection to the proposed Whitebridge development DA-1772-2013.

    I do not object to the development of this parcel of land, however this current proposal is an excessive over development which is not appropriate or socially sustainable within this area.

    1. I believe that LMCC medium density zoning requirements intended any development to be suited to the area in which it was to be built and would harmonise, or ideally improve, the local surrounds. There are no 3 storey, 'wall to wall' buildings in the entire area. These zoning requirements could still be met with far fewer residences, and would alleviate many of the associated problems (listed below).

    2. This large development places enormous strain on an already congested traffic and parking situation. The local shops rarely have enough parks for the current residents and Lonus Avenue, the roundabout, Dudley Road and the nearby streets often have accidents or 'near misses'. The addition of 200 cars to this small area is completely unsustainable and dangerous. Lonus Avenue houses a highschool, preschool, day care and childrens' park, which already have limited safe access and parking.

    3. The social issues raised from such an overcrowded development are serious. There is no personal space for residents to entertain or spend their time, meaning they are forced to use the local areas' already limited resources and amenities. The developer has stated that they will be building homes aimed at families. These 'family homes' will have no outdoor space and no communal space and will share a wall with neighbours on both sides. This will only create conflict and boredom, especially with teenage residents.

    4. I believe the LMCC has been taking its environmental responsibilities seriously. However, the complete disregard for environmental concerns within this development proposal are alarming. All dwellings will be fitted with clothes dryers instead of washing lines, all dwellings will need to be constantly air conditioned as there will be no open space to allow breezes and absorbtion of heat, no green space for the encouragement of native fauna and no natural land to aid the seepage of storm water.
    A 3 or 4 bedroom home NEEDS to have personal outdoor space to accommodate that number of inhabitants and to relieve social pressure on the surrounding community.

    The primary concern of the LMCC and the JRPP should be the well being and success of its communities, both present and future. This development should provide quality housing that complements the local area rather than low quality, tightly crammed housing that disconnects from its immediate surrounds and neighbours.

    Thank you,
    C. James

  80. Amanda Brown commented

    Re: DA 1774/2013 142 Dudley Road, NSW 2290

    I am writing to express my concerns and opposition to the proposed development for this site.

    To put my concerns and opinions in to context, I live in Hudson Street Whitebridge and I work in Charlestown.

    As many other residents before me have noted, the roads and amenities in the vicinity of the proposed development site are already under significant strain. The projected density and additional vehicles in my opinion will only serve to exacerbate existing issues.

    After reviewing the traffic reports provided by the developer I can state that these do not accurately reflect the actual resident’s experience of navigating Dudley road or the roundabout in peak times. I can only describe this as running a gauntlet due to the sheer volume of vehicles. Whilst traffic delays are a normal and inevitable part of modern life, it is my belief that this will exceed a reasonable limit. Given the anticipated number of units (87) and associated vehicles (anywhere from 100 to 250 additional vehicles) proposed I believe that unless additional measures to upgrade the local amenities are undertaken, Whitebridge will be unable to support this.

    I have both observed and experienced the impact on the local community which first occurred when the development site was fenced off. This has restricted access to the local cafes and shops, as Hudson street does not have a footpath, and the dirt path provided by council leading to Kopa street is difficult to manage for residents such as parents with prams and elderly residents who cannot cope with the uneven ground. This is not only inconvenient but presents numerous dangers to local residents. The development in its current form does nothing to alleviate the issues caused by fencing the block. As the proposed development features a large fence and private roads, effectively shutting the existing community out, I do not see how the proposed design would benefit or add value to Whitebridge.

    Additionally, I would like to express concerns pertaining to the social impact of this proposed development on Whitebridge as a community. What appears to be a popular pro-development opinion in many instances where opposition is evident, is that residents have the option to “go somewhere else if they don’t like it”.

    I recently noted this to the developer’s representative, Wade Morris of SNL on the Whitebridge Community Alliance’s Facebook Page, reporting that “I take issues with any resident being told to ‘go somewhere else’… not everyone has the option to ‘go somewhere else’. Residents who are elderly or not financially viable to be uprooted spring to mind instantly…”. Mr Morris’ response: “…Get involved in the planning process, make a submission, and perhaps next time you purchase a home, complete some detailed due diligence… (I) look forward to reading your submission – I am sure it will be detailed and evidence based – not full of the alarmist, unfounded rubbish you have peddled to date”. Please note that these comments in their entirety have been made by both parties (and are still available at time of submission) on a public website which the reader can easily access via google search.

    In my opinion it is thus little wonder, given such interactions with the developer and their representative Mr Morris, that residents have such grave concerns for the future of their community.

    Had the developer effectively consulted with the Whitebridge and greater community regarding their plans for the site, I believe that a mutually beneficial solution would have been identified. It is also my belief that many residents would still welcome any further opportunity to be involved in any process which may assist in reaching an outcome which would produce a quality development for both the community and the developer. This is evidenced by the attendance of hundreds of residents at both public meetings arranged by the Whitebridge Community Alliance (WCA), and by the many submissions I have read before mine.

    As many residents have already reported, I too am not opposed to development of this site. Whitebridge deserves a quality development which will add value to the area. As outlined above, given my concerns I do not believe this will be the case if the development proceeds as proposed.

    Sincerely

    Amanda Rachel Brown

  81. Anthony Cleva commented

    I have lived in the Charlestown / Whitebridge area for 50 years. This is a community that deserves better planning than this. We need more open spaces for our community to share and this area has always been open space. As well the increased traffic generated by this high density development will cause considerable traffic issues on roads surrounding the shopping centre already congested.
    If this development is allowed to go ahead it will be to the detriment of our community not a benefit!

  82. Brad Willis commented

    Re: DA 1774/2013

    Like many local residents, I am not opposed to development of the site, but am opposed to the scale and layout of the proposed development. It is clearly evident that the focus of the planning was to ensure that the maximum number of allowable dwellings could be constructed on the site, to maximise profits for the developer.

    My objections are that the development is completely out of character with the rest of Whitebridge and Dudley. These areas are sought after because the majority of dwellings are free standing on individual lots, where people take great pride and care in their homes and there is a great sense of community pride.

    Simhill has designed a medium density development with a lack of parking and green space, aligning most of the building broadly east west with no consideration of utilising the benefits of north facing living areas or ecological design.

    This is aside from the fact the proposed development is in a mine subsidence district where three coal seams have been extracted using both partial and secondary extraction techniques. The geotechnical report indicates the factor of safety from the Dudley and Borehole seam suggests that additional subsidence is likley to occur, depending on how much subsidence has already taken place. This is not the place for a high density development of this scale.

    LMCC should take note as to how many people are objecting to this development, which has now drawn greater attention due to the lack of initial consultation in selling the parcel of land and scale of the development, and now through the beligerent attitudes of the developers when the community has exercised their right to question and object to this inappropriate application.

    With other concerns including creation of an urban jungle and traffic issues coming to mind, we hope that common sense will prevail, with Simhill being forced to redesign this development to a more acceptable scale.

  83. L Carey commented

    As a resident of Dudley Rd (At the Charlestown end), our family has the following concerns;
    1. This density of housing/development is not within character of the general area.
    2. We already have concerns about additional similar but much smaller scale townhouses currently being added or having just been completed on this same road. So any studies into the additional requirements of this development alone - would not be accumulating the overall increased development of this area.
    3. We have concerns about the increased traffic on Dudley Rd. Already we have significant difficulty backing out of our driveway with the number and speed of current vehicles. Street parking is already becoming an issue (especially around Amaroo Nursing home). This development will add additional significant congestion & pressure.
    4. The current infrastructure of footpaths, pedestrian crossings within this area of development is already lacking. With increased vehicle and pedestrian traffic that this development will bring - this problem will only increase. (As an example; try wheeling a pram from Dudley Rd into the playground on the Cnr of Lonus Street). In this example alone, we are forced to make dangerous crossings with young children.
    5. This playground is the only one in the local area that has green space & is fenced. But it already becomes extremely congested at various times of the day and week. Particularly on weekends where childrens birthday parties are often hosted, and the area becomes dominated and dangerous with the number of children. The proposed development means additional use & pressure on a very small playing area which also does not have dedicated or sufficient parking. The toilets are also of serious concern.
    6. The childcare centre next door (Biralee) already has not been able to offer any places this year besides existing children or siblings. Such a large development again is going to add additional stress to services/businesses already not able to cope with the expanding local community.
    7. As mentioned many times above, the high density and design of this development is not only against character but has questionable environmental impacts in addition to the social impacts of such housing.

    Like most of the above submissions, we are not completely opposed to the development of this land. We believe the plans need a significant overhaul and consideration in conjunction to what already exists, has been approved and is in current development.

  84. Kate Akhurst-Dennis commented

    To Lake Macquarie City Council

    I am very concerned about the design proposal for DA 1772-2013 proposed for Lonus Ave, Whitebridge. I lived in Dudley for many years, and my extended family are raising our children in the Charlestown community and we genuinely care about the neighbourhood.

    I do not object to the development of this land. However I think there should be about 40 well- designed quality units, not 70-80 very poorly designed ones.

    The current high density proposal cannot possibly attract residents who care about the important things like decent trees, gardens, personal and communal space, privacy and quiet respect for others. The proposed development seems cold-hearted with the sole objective to maximise profits through high density and low quality. I am confident that the proposed amount of poor quality housing will cause long term problems for the whole community.

    I expect Lake Macquarie Council and the JRPP to make a stand against this development, and accept only a design which will improve the local area in the longer term.

    Yours sincerely
    Kate Akhurst-Dennis

  85. R Cromarty commented

    I am concerned by the amount of traffic that this new development will cause. Traffic around Whitebridge High, the roundabout and shopping areas at the end of school is already chaotic and very dangerous for school children to be navigating through. I don't believe council or developers have considered the future impact on Whitebridge and its community. Waiting times at local preschools already are at peak with waiting lists beginning whilst the mother is pregnant. They already struggle to go on local excursions due to the amount of traffic.

    Please consider the locals and act wisely.

  86. Carolyn Ryan commented

    As a long term resident of Whitebridge I have a number of concerns with this development:

    1. The density of this development- 80 + units on this space is not in keeping with the general character of Whitebridge and Dudley. Having previously lived in built up areas like Merewether we chose to buy a home in Whitebridge because of spacious , community environment. I feel a development of this size is not suitable to the area.

    2. Traffic Congestion - I live on Bullsgarden Rd and frequent the whitebridge shops as do most of Whitebridge, Redhead and Dudley residents. Trafffic is already an issue at the roundabout at Whitebridge especially in the mornings and school pickup to early evening. Access to and from Lonus avenue is particularly difficult at these times for those hundreds of families who have children at Whitebridge High School and Birralee Long Day Care Centre. This development with access only via Kopa Street woould compound this issue.

    3. Parking- Parking at the whitebridge shops is already an issue with limited parking spaces for the many residents who frequent this area. A development of this size would exaccerbate this issue.

    4. Sustainability- As I understand, the development proposes very little green space and all the housing will not have outdoor clothes lines. Dryers would be used. This is something i experienced when living in the densely populated city of Los Angeles. This is Australia, we have space, we have sunlight and clean air, we are trying to reduce our energy use and be "greener" why are allowing a developer to go ahead with such a project. It obviously needs to be scaled back- possibly 40 units on this site would seem to be more environmently sound.

    5. Access to the Fernleigh track- has already been reduced and there will be increased traffic and congestion with the access off Station Street.

    6. Whitebridge is a family community- we need parks and open spaces. The scale of this development is reminiscent of the "projects" I lived near in New Orleans USA . Lets not sell out Whitebridge to the highest bidder. We need lower density, environmentally sound developments.
    PLEASE DON'T APPROVE THIS DEVELOPMENT IN ITS CURRENT FORM

  87. Gwenda Smith commented

    RE DA 1774/2013
    TO LMCC General Manager
    I am a long term resident of Whitebridge, having lived here since 1993. My husband and I both have elderly mothers living nearby, as well as a married son and his young family. We will all be affected by the outcome of this DA process, and I am writing to voice my grave concerns.
    I am writing to add to my initial submission on 312/2013, DO6823311. Since that time I have had the opportunity to learn much more about the proposed development for the land adjacent Whitebridge shopping area on Dudley Rd/Kopa St. I have also had the opportunity to speak with numerous local residents from the whole community of Whitebridge, Dudley, Redhead, Kahibah and Charlestown. I have not met any who think that this proposal has any merits in terms of the sheer scale and density of the project.

    Most people realise that the land has been rezoned and will be developed, but we want a GOOD development. This would be to the benefit of the existing wider community, the local businesses and any future residents of the site.

    The land was rezoned with the intention of having approximately 50 houses on the area zoned 2.2, including other land further along Lonus Ave. The intentions of the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy and LMCC LEP 2004 Amendment 53 should be considered when Council and the JRPP review this DA. The developer insults local residents by saying we should have objected to the rezoning when that occurred; the planning proposals for the rezoning gave no indication that a project of 87 townhouses and units, and 4 commercial units, all 2 and 3 storey would be proposed for this parcel of land. The buildings occupy almost all of the land available for development, and even the portion zoned Conservation will be utilised for a stormwater basin during construction, and maybe as a backyard for some of the residents completion.

    The density is too high for this land, as a result of the length and height of the buildings planned.
    The buildings are totally out of character with the surrounding low density, most neighbouring properties are one storey family homes with front and back yards.

    The design of the buildings is very unattractive, with long rows of repetitive units and terraces, rows of garage doors, all looking the same. The visual impact of the buildings will be overwhelming from all sides. It will be inappropriate to look up at a long row of 3 storey terraces from the heritage Fernleigh Track. It will be very unpleasant to sit at the cafes and be on the footpath whilst shopping on the S. side of Dudley Road, and look across at bulky, long buildings opposite, much higher than the existing shops adjacent.

    The DA appears to give no consideration to building in an environmentally sustainable way. In this modern era, it is totally irresponsible to plan buildings that all need air conditioning as they have poor solar orientation, poor ventilation opportunities, no awnings and little room for vegetation for shading purposes. They all will have internal clothed dryers, no rainwater tanks and no garden space. The cost of running these properties will continue to rise.

    The proposal provides insufficient private and public open space. Where will the children play? Where will the teenagers hang out? Where will the adults get together for a BBQ if they decide they can co-exist together in such close quarters and are not fighting with each other, as can happen in overcrowded situations? What if the residents have pets? They can be a source of neighbourhood disputes. Surely the developers have a responsibility to provide adequate open space and recreational facilities where large numbers of people will live within a limited area in a strata development.

    Has the developer planned properly for the landscaping in the limited open areas that do exist? Are the chosen trees and plants suitable for this area, especially as the site includes a Conservation Zone and is adjacent to an ecological corridor, linking forested areas of Glenrock and Awabakal. These areas need to be protected and respected, not ignored.

    Are there plans to remove the trees from Kopa St road reserve? These trees are an integral part of the green corridor and should be retained. If all traffic enters and leaves the site via Kopa St, does this street have to be extended, and by how much. The community would be very concerned to find that LMCC may have entered into an agreement with the developer for these trees on public land to be removed, for the benefit of the developer only. Are the mature native trees on the site being retained and protected during construction?

    Will the local community be excluded from crossing the site to move between Hudson St area, Fernleigh Track, and the Whitebridge shops. This informal pathway has existed for many decades, and is important to the long-established movement of pedestrians, cyclists and tourists using the Track.

    The implications of cramming large numbers of people into the proposed buildings has the potential of causing great social problems. The relationships between people living in such close quarters often become dysfunctional, and the resultant problems then affect other living nearby as well as the wider community. The lack of resources, facilities and space for the residents could cause ongoing problems into the future (eg. domestic violence, malicious damage, disputes between neighbours, vandalism and petty crime) This would be unpleasant for the residents, the local businesses, schools, and the wider community.

    The social and physical infrastructure of the local area is unlikely to cope with the sudden increase in population that could occur. The impact on the local roads would be a dangerous nightmare. The roads radiating out from the Whitebridge roundabout are already very busy with queues a cars building up. The entry and exit points of the existing shop car park are already busy and at times hazardous. The traffic through the "pinchpoint" of Whitebridge on Dudley Rd is heavy, as this road services several suburbs, with cars travelling through this area heading towards many destinations. The T intersection of Burwood Rd and Dudley Rd has become noticeably busier in recent years. SO, the local roads are already operating at or over capacity.

    Will the sewer and stormwater systems cope with this influx of people? The runoff from the site will be greatly increased due to the number and size of the buildings, the amount of hard road surface and the limited green areas. This water will flow towards Fernleigh Track and on to local water ways.

    The proposed development is totally out of character with the local area. The fact that the developer has even put this proposal in for consideration indicates a total INABILITY to assess the local situation, respect and consult with the local community, abide by all manner of government regulations or display much common sense. They have succeeded in getting the wider community offside when this could have been avoided by consultation, good planning and design, and consideration of the existing community lifestyle and ethos.

    The developer will need to greatly change the proposal to gain any approval and acceptance by the residents who have united in their opposition to this unacceptable DA.

    We trust that LMCC and the JRPP will ensure that this DA is rejected and the developer is compelled to submit a DA which will be acceptable to the local residents. A proposal with far fewer dwellings in less buildings, lower height, more open space, greater setbacks from boundaries on all sides, an urban park, open access for all residents, appropriate plantings, attractive buildings, sustainable design will have a greater chance of being approved by all. The lower density would them have less impact on traffic, safety, social issues, and the environment and the new residents would then hopefully be welcomed into this wonderful community.

  88. Gwenda Smith commented

    RE DA 1774/2013
    TO LMCC General Manager
    I am a long term resident of Whitebridge, having lived here since 1993. My husband and I both have elderly mothers living nearby, as well as a married son and his young family. We will all be affected by the outcome of this DA process, and I am writing to voice my grave concerns.
    I am writing to add to my initial submission on 312/2013, DO6823311. Since that time I have had the opportunity to learn much more about the proposed development for the land adjacent Whitebridge shopping area on Dudley Rd/Kopa St. I have also had the opportunity to speak with numerous local residents from the whole community of Whitebridge, Dudley, Redhead, Kahibah and Charlestown. I have not met any who think that this proposal has any merits in terms of the sheer scale and density of the project.

    Most people realise that the land has been rezoned and will be developed, but we want a GOOD development. This would be to the benefit of the existing wider community, the local businesses and any future residents of the site.

    The land was rezoned with the intention of having approximately 50 houses on the area zoned 2.2, including other land further along Lonus Ave. The intentions of the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy and LMCC LEP 2004 Amendment 53 should be considered when Council and the JRPP review this DA. The developer insults local residents by saying we should have objected to the rezoning when that occurred; the planning proposals for the rezoning gave no indication that a project of 87 townhouses and units, and 4 commercial units, all 2 and 3 storey would be proposed for this parcel of land. The buildings occupy almost all of the land available for development, and even the portion zoned Conservation will be utilised for a stormwater basin during construction, and maybe as a backyard for some of the residents completion.

    The density is too high for this land, as a result of the length and height of the buildings planned.
    The buildings are totally out of character with the surrounding low density, most neighbouring properties are one storey family homes with front and back yards.

    The design of the buildings is very unattractive, with long rows of repetitive units and terraces, rows of garage doors, all looking the same. The visual impact of the buildings will be overwhelming from all sides. It will be inappropriate to look up at a long row of 3 storey terraces from the heritage Fernleigh Track. It will be very unpleasant to sit at the cafes and be on the footpath whilst shopping on the S. side of Dudley Road, and look across at bulky, long buildings opposite, much higher than the existing shops adjacent.

    The DA appears to give no consideration to building in an environmentally sustainable way. In this modern era, it is totally irresponsible to plan buildings that all need air conditioning as they have poor solar orientation, poor ventilation opportunities, no awnings and little room for vegetation for shading purposes. They all will have internal clothed dryers, no rainwater tanks and no garden space. The cost of running these properties will continue to rise.

    The proposal provides insufficient private and public open space. Where will the children play? Where will the teenagers hang out? Where will the adults get together for a BBQ if they decide they can co-exist together in such close quarters and are not fighting with each other, as can happen in overcrowded situations? What if the residents have pets? They can be a source of neighbourhood disputes. Surely the developers have a responsibility to provide adequate open space and recreational facilities where large numbers of people will live within a limited area in a strata development.

    Has the developer planned properly for the landscaping in the limited open areas that do exist? Are the chosen trees and plants suitable for this area, especially as the site includes a Conservation Zone and is adjacent to an ecological corridor, linking forested areas of Glenrock and Awabakal. These areas need to be protected and respected, not ignored.

    Are there plans to remove the trees from Kopa St road reserve? These trees are an integral part of the green corridor and should be retained. If all traffic enters and leaves the site via Kopa St, does this street have to be extended, and by how much. The community would be very concerned to find that LMCC may have entered into an agreement with the developer for these trees on public land to be removed, for the benefit of the developer only. Are the mature native trees on the site being retained and protected during construction?

    Will the local community be excluded from crossing the site to move between Hudson St area, Fernleigh Track, and the Whitebridge shops. This informal pathway has existed for many decades, and is important to the long-established movement of pedestrians, cyclists and tourists using the Track.

    The implications of cramming large numbers of people into the proposed buildings has the potential of causing great social problems. The relationships between people living in such close quarters often become dysfunctional, and the resultant problems then affect other living nearby as well as the wider community. The lack of resources, facilities and space for the residents could cause ongoing problems into the future (eg. domestic violence, malicious damage, disputes between neighbours, vandalism and petty crime) This would be unpleasant for the residents, the local businesses, schools, and the wider community.

    The social and physical infrastructure of the local area is unlikely to cope with the sudden increase in population that could occur. The impact on the local roads would be a dangerous nightmare. The roads radiating out from the Whitebridge roundabout are already very busy with queues a cars building up. The entry and exit points of the existing shop car park are already busy and at times hazardous. The traffic through the "pinchpoint" of Whitebridge on Dudley Rd is heavy, as this road services several suburbs, with cars travelling through this area heading towards many destinations. The T intersection of Burwood Rd and Dudley Rd has become noticeably busier in recent years. SO, the local roads are already operating at or over capacity.

    Will the sewer and stormwater systems cope with this influx of people? The runoff from the site will be greatly increased due to the number and size of the buildings, the amount of hard road surface and the limited green areas. This water will flow towards Fernleigh Track and on to local water ways.

    The proposed development is totally out of character with the local area. The fact that the developer has even put this proposal in for consideration indicates a total INABILITY to assess the local situation, respect and consult with the local community, abide by all manner of government regulations or display much common sense. They have succeeded in getting the wider community offside when this could have been avoided by consultation, good planning and design, and consideration of the existing community lifestyle and ethos.

    The developer will need to greatly change the proposal to gain any approval and acceptance by the residents who have united in their opposition to this unacceptable DA.

    We trust that LMCC and the JRPP will ensure that this DA is rejected and the developer is compelled to submit a DA which will be acceptable to the local residents. A proposal with far fewer dwellings in less buildings, lower height, more open space, greater setbacks from boundaries on all sides, an urban park, open access for all residents, appropriate plantings, attractive buildings, sustainable design will have a greater chance of being approved by all. The lower density would them have less impact on traffic, safety, social issues, and the environment and the new residents would then hopefully be welcomed into this wonderful community.

  89. Jason Hepple commented

    I am a resident of Redhead and I strongly oppose the proposed development at Dudley Road and Kopa Street, Whitebridge.

    Safety of the Fernleigh Track will be compromised:

    As a regular user of the Fernleigh Track, I am concerned about the impacts this development will have on its use. Safety will be compromised by residents of the development using the track as their own private outdoor space, due to the appalling lack of green space within the development itself. The track is a cycle/walk way and it is not intended for static activity.

    Traffic safety of schoolchildren and other pedestrians:

    This development will lead to an intensive and unsafe increase in traffic on roads that are already functioning over-capacity. The area is a thoroughfare for people accessing local beaches and it is also home to a high school, preschool and long daycare centre. It is unsafe and irresponsible to compromise the safety of people by squeezing 87 dwellings into the centre of the suburb where they will be required to use the already busy roads that service schools in the area.

    Inappropriate size and design for the area:

    This is a gross over-development of the site with total disregard for the current streetscape and street character of the area. No attempt has been made to integrate the development with the current surroundings.

    Setting a precedent for other inappropriate developments:

    If this development goes ahead in its current form, there is a very high chance that similar developments will spring up along the land once reserved for the East Charlestown Bypass. This will inevitably and irreversibly change the entire character of these coastal suburbs in a negative manner.

    The development of this land must be more carefully and responsibly considered and should contribute positively to the suburb.

  90. Kristen Hepple commented

    I am a resident of Redhead and I strongly oppose the proposed development at Dudley Road and Kopa Street, Whitebridge.

    I’m concerned that the TRAFFIC IMPACT of the development has not been carefully considered. It is already becoming extremely difficult to get a park to use the Whitebridge shops, and the congestion at school times is already a problem.

    As a parent of 4 children who will attend Whitebridge High, I am extremely concerned about the SAFETY of the area if this development is to be approved in its current form. I would feel extremely uncomfortable about the level of traffic AND the SOCIAL PROBLEMS such as an increase in CRIME and ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR which are usually associated with this type of development, and especially when a high school and development of this type co-exist in a suburb.

    I am also concerned about the ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT of this development. There is no provision for sustainable and efficient energy use and it aestethically impedes negatively on the Fernleigh Track. It DOES NOT FIT WITH ITS SURROUNDINGS. It will look UNSIGHTLY and OUT-OF-PLACE in Whitebridge.

    I am extremely concerned that if this development is approved without significant modifications, it will SET A PRECEDENT for other land along the environmental corridor from Adamstown to Belmont to be developed in the same careless manner.

    Council must ensure that this land is developed in a RESPONSIBLE and PROGRESSIVE manner so that the community of Whitebridge and all surrounding suburbs may benefit from, rather than bear the consequences of, the development of this land.

  91. Lynden Jacobi commented

    There are many issues of concern regarding the proposed development at Kopa St/Dudley Rd.
    - lack of community consultation
    - high density and incompatibility with the surrounding neighbourhood,
    - traffic congestion causing an increase in hazards to pedestrians especially children,
    - parking issues in and around the existing shops and not enough parking spaces for the four proposed new commercial outlets
    - problems with the architectural design which has no environmentally friendly features, and no consideration of communal areas for locals to use
    - no plans on how to integrate such a large population into the Whitebridge community
    - increase in social problems which can arise when a large population is squashed into ill-designed tenements in an already established neighbourhood.
    The quality of design can affect acceptance of a project, both early in the process and after the project is complete. The willingness to respond to neighbours’ suggestions helps projects proceed. The “consultation” with two SNL representatives held at the site in late 2013 was inadequate and offensive to some. There was no consultation just a meeting where residents were told what was going to happen whether we liked it or not.
    Increased populations increase traffic and demand for curbside parking. Both of these factors are known to reduce community safety levels, for children in particular. The congestion generated by increased traffic can lengthen travel times and concentrate vehicle emissions causing environmental degradation and reducing amenity values. Increased traffic levels also generate additional noise in a neighbourhood, as does a more concentrated population.
    The density of this proposed development is not only out of keeping with the surrounding suburb, SNL have made no effort to incorporate ecologically sustainable design principals. This DA could have been designed in the pre-environmental awareness era prior to the1950s. These dwellings are faced to the west-north-west which allows for maximum sun from mid-winter through summer and into early autumn directly into the living areas. Although mid-winter sun sounds good it becomes unbearable when you haven’t enough shade. There will be a need for air-conditioners almost year-round. There are no water tanks and no areas for gardens or drying of clothes. Are SNL assuming each unit will run its dryer daily?
    Many new design projects never find acceptance and this can often be attributed to poor design quality. The physical layout and building structures should be planned with an eye to how they would influence patterns of social interaction and increase the possibilities for informal social control, with clear fields of vision to observe public spaces from individual units. It is important to provide space and opportunities for tenants to meet both for formal and informal activities.
    Providing public amenities (or not) affects perceptions of projects long after they are complete. Projects that provide amenities that are available to the public and not just to residents of the project, more often earn acceptance from neighbours. These include features such as neighbourhood pathways, parks, or the preservation of mature trees.
    This proposed development is to be built in an area formerly used as open space. A reduction in public open green space and the loss of the path to the shops that has been used for generations will severely affect the amenity of the whole area. The proposal plans to discourage anyone other than the new tenants from entering the development which will cause an “us and them” mentality which works against any feeling of welcoming new neighbours into our community.
    Modifications can be made to improve the existing plans and hopefully with input from the local residents, council and SNL we can make something the whole neighbourhood can be proud of.

  92. Sandra Simmington commented

    Everyone but the money hungry developer knows this development will be madness. Lake Macquarie Shire Council promised this would never happen. Hope we don't end up with a Hassell Street Hamilton scenario.

  93. Scott & Cathryn Roberts commented

    Dear Mr Bell,

    I’m writing on behalf of both my wife & I. We have lived at Whitebridge for 24 years, have raised 3 daughters in the area and understand the concerns of the Whitebridge community.

    The planned development adds nothing to the area, it will place a further drain on resources and is totally inappropriate in its proposed form, and please let me explain more:-

    1. Traffic Flow
    a. Access to Lonus Ave during school start & finish times is already at a capacity.
    i. We accepted this when moving to the area but the additional demands of a development this size with only single access to Lonus Ave is unacceptable.
    ii. At a minimum access to Dudley Road should also be considered
    2. Parking
    a. Currently parking at Whitebridge Shops is a challenge, it’s at full capacity.
    b. Where will visitors to the development park?
    i. If each unit is only allocated 2 spaces where will any visitor park?
    1. This will only compound an already difficult situation in the car park at the shops and in the Kopa Street entry.
    3. Play Areas
    a. Simple question, where will the children play or congregate?
    i. If this was an over 50’s development or retirement living we could skip this, but it’s not so the only option for the kids will be the Fernleigh Track, the Shops or to wander the streets. None of which adds to a community.
    4. Additional Community Amenities
    a. When GPT did Charlestown Square there were Parks provided, Clubs built. What extra community benefits does this development provide?
    5. Like Sized Projects
    a. There are no similar sized developments in Lake Macquarie?
    6. Tourism
    a. The Fernleigh Track has become a major draw card to the City; the proposed development will detract from this. It will be a talking point for all the wrong reasons.
    7. Safety
    a. Bush Fires
    i. One access road will make it impossible for people to evacuate if needed
    1. The roads can’t even accommodate a normal council garbage truck
    b. Personal Safety
    i. Personal Safety on the Fernleigh Track will certainly not be improved.
    1. Personally I have already witnessed a confrontation with bored youths throwing items onto the track.

    The land needs to be developed, but it deserves better than the proposed development and even if the proposed development meets a minimum criteria that doesn't mean it’s in the best interest of the community.

  94. Karina Currington commented

    To the General Manager, Lake Macquarie City Council
    Re: DA 1774/2013 142 Dudley Rd, Whitebridge

    Dear Sir,

    Please accept this as my follow up submission.

    I attended the local community meeting held on 1/2/2014, where I learned that the Lake Macquarie Council would not be responsible for the collection of waste/ waste management from the proposed development, and it will be the individual owners responsibility to pay privately to have their personal bin/s emptied each week.

    My question is, what is the protocol for if / when individuals refuse or are unable to pay for this basic service? I am concerned that this could lead to illegal dumping in the area, and the knock on effects from this. I understand this will be a strata title but will that include garbage disposal in the corporate body rates?

    Thank you for your time, hope this matter is considered in your approval/ disapproval processes.

    Yours Sincerely.
    Karina Currington

  95. Geoff Dawson commented

    To whom it may concern, please accept this submission regarding the development
    . DA-1774/2013, 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street Whitebridge
    I am writing to voice my extreme objection to various elements of this development. Myself and my family are particularly affected as we adjoin the development and our property is in Kopa St.
    Councils are employed for all the people, not just those of wealth and it is my opinion that this community has rallied together with good reason for a common goal: That being a good development that fits into the local community.
    While I understand this property will be developed I agree with the concerns of the many submissions already lodged regarding the following issues:
    1)Traffic Issues
    *Kopa St being the only access and added traffic congestion in local area. This area is outrageous now without the burden of extra traffic.
    I draw your attention to the following links 2 of which are taken from my property and 1 a video taken at school time PM.
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=805396379474141&set=o.390027067798916&type=2&theater
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10202767772455981&set=o.390027067798916&type=1&theater
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=633417736695367&set=o.390027067798916&type=1&theater
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=633417163362091&set=o.390027067798916&type=1&theater
    *It is my belief that the traffic study done by SNL was conducted on a Tuesday afternoon when Whitebridge High students have already left for sport. This issue needs to be addressed,
    * I constantly witness students endangering themselves by trying to cross between traffic. This development will increase traffic and further the danger to school students.
    *Cars are unable to access or leave driveways when this daily traffic jam occurs.
    * Staff from Whitebridge shops now park along Lonus Ave and it is difficult to pass when buses are arriving leaving the school.It is only a matter of time before accidents occur.
    *There have been several near misses with traffic leaving the long day care centre.
    *The parking at Whitebridge shops is already at capacity ALL DAY. Locals are well aware of the dangers of the car park as it exists now with the entry and exit points both very dangerous. This is before any more pressure is added by this high volume development.
    Kopa St is already used as a parking area for users of the Fernleigh track and these people will be impacted as the amount of visitor parking is inadequate and people will inevitably park in Kopa St or at the shops to visit development.
    2) Size and design of Development.
    *This development is not in keeping with surrounding areas. There are no developments of this size in the surrounding area and this DA is akin to building a city within a suburb. The 2 and 3 storeys are far too high and dense for this area.
    *Council zoning of this area would allow for about half the houses to be built and council needs to look at the views of the community.
    *It encroaches on the privacy of adjoining properties greatly and changes the visual landscape of the area dramatically.
    *The homes are not environmentally friendly in design and have little regard for the betterment of the community .This development does not allow local residents and Fernleigh track users to pass through to shops.
    The wildlife corridor is not even 20 metres all the way from Fernleigh track.
    This land is only a part of the corridor that was zoned for the eastern bypass and this parcel of land needs to be managed very carefully as it is a catalyst for future developments along this important land corridor that adjoins the Fernleigh track.
    *There is miniscule greenspace or communal area in which youth and children can spend time.
    This has the potential for future crime rates in the area to increase.
    It is my hope that this development can be halved in size. This would better enable this community to continue to function as a seaside community where people are happy with their surrounds and houses are built with environment and community in mind.
    Regards
    Geoff Dawson

  96. Michael Dixon commented

    This type of development should not go ahead in my opinion.
    Whitebridge has a certain feel within its community, a character which its residents enjoy. It seems the developer has aimed at creating maximum profit at the cost of the greater Whitebridge area.

    Major issues include,
    1. Dramatic increase in traffic flow within whitebridge

    2. Removal of community space by "fencing off" a large portion of the access to Fernleigh track. (a small pathway around the proposed dwellings is not a suitable substitute for open road through low density) .

    3. It is the catalyst for unprecedented commercialisation of the Whitebridge area. It is no secret the fear many have of the proposed warren rd extension (destruction of bushland, destroying Kahibah's parkland and housing). I feel that if this type of "maximum density" housing goes ahead, it opens the flood gates for such projects and will instill a lack of trust of the council in the hearts and minds of the local community.

    As a engineering graduate I feel that many more options could be researched which benefit all, a development of larger homes at lower density within that field would ensure that whitebridge can retain its bushland feel and not directly benefit a few men within the SNL company.

    Thankyou for reading all comments, we wouldn't have bothered writing them if we didn't feel strongly about this .
    :)

  97. Stephen Ryan commented

    I oppose the development in its current form for several reasons.

    1. There is no comparable sized development in the residential suburb of Whitebridge. To allow a 3 story 87 unit development would set a precedent that could allow other such developments. There are far more suitable areas in Lake Macquarie for such a development, such as designated hub areas (eg Charlestown, Glendale, Toronto, Morriset).

    2. There is already insufficient parking space at Whitebridge shops. The proposed development seeks to add 4 more shops. Without an increase in off-street parking, more cars will be forced to park along Whitebridge Road with its attendant risks to pedestrian safety. In addition, further traffic congestion will result both from the cars of the residents of the development and the cars trying to enter the Whitebridge shops car park, which already causes problems at the roundabout at the junction of Bulls Garden Rd and Whitebridge Rd.

    3. The development has already blocked access to the cycle path built by Council, and the development has not even been started. The current designated exit point from the Fernleigh track at Whitebridge will therefore not allow access to Whitebridge shops or the suburb. In addition, children from several schools will have to detour around this development, potentially onto roads.

    4. The development is so tightly packed with units, driveways and garages that there is almost no room for plantings. The entire development will become a concrete monolith with no intention to bring parkland or breathing space into the area. Native wildlife will have a corridor removed from their environment.

    5. The Lake Macquarie Council has already decided that the development should not go ahead in its present form. This was decided by our elected representatives who are familiar with the area's needs and opinions.

    Stephen Ryan

  98. David Gleadhill commented

    SUBMISSION regarding PLANNING PROPOSAL for WHITEBRIDGE NSW
    DA number: 1774/2013
    Address: 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street WHITEBRIDGE NSW 2290
    Applicant: SNL Building Construction Pty Ltd
    08 February 2014

    Density:
    The proposed development is for medium to high density accommodation, which is contrary to almost all existing developments in this suburb. The existing low-density developments give Whitebridge its unique character, and provides a distinction from existing high-density developments well established, for example, in nearby Charlestown, a favoured area for businesses, shopping and apartment-style living. These suburbs complement each other well, not only by their contrasting and distinct characters but by their proximity.
    The proposed development is close to the protected Awabakal Bush, Glen Rock Park, the popular Fernleigh Track and the unspoilt Dudley Beach, and the density of this development would be in very stark contrast to the character of these amenities, currently enjoyed by not only local residents but also those from outside the immediate area.

    Traffic Congestion and Parking Problems:
    Whitebridge already has moderate to heavy traffic congestion at times, especially at the start and end of office hours, and at school times. Congestion would be very significantly and adversely affected by the proposed development. This would be particularly evident at the Whitebridge roundabout, where there are periods of high pedestrian activity.
    Whitebridge shopping area has had a recent upgrade, with new and additional parking, as well as a one-way traffic system, but this is already highly congested at times and can be unsafe for drivers and pedestrians. The proposed development would greatly exacerbate these issues, and would have a negative impact on parking throughout the Whitebridge area.

    Safety:
    Safety for vehicle users and pedestrians would be greatly compromised by the proposed development. The roads around the area in question are busy, and some (especially those around Whitebridge roundabout) are relatively narrow, with limited visual access at certain locations. There are two pedestrian crossings, each of which is currently hazardous for drivers and pedestrians. Changes have been made in recent years to the road and footpath around the crossing nearest the roundabout/shops area, but these have only partially ameliorated the situation. Speed humps were trialled but then abandoned. Currently the gap between road and car park on the southern side of the road, in particular, remains limited, compromising visual access for drivers, and limiting their opportunities to anticipate pedestrians crossing the road. Visual access of pedestrians, when coming off the roundabout to travel eastward, remains especially poor.
    It should be noted that this area is close to a large secondary school (Whitebridge High) and is frequented in large numbers at certain times of day by school-age children.
    The area, being semi-rural in character, is also popular with cyclists and joggers, and the proposed development and resulting increased traffic congestion would greatly increase the dangers to these groups.
    Any general increase in the local population, and therefore in pedestrian and vehicular traffic, in this area is likely to increase these hazards, and the medium to high density proposal, in particular, is likely to exacerbate the risks to all users and all age groups.
    Given my professional work in Emergency Medicine, I have particular concerns about these issues.

    Social Impact:
    The character of the Whitebridge/Dudley area is one of a low-density suburb, with all the benefits and drawbacks that that may afford. Residents and visitors enjoy that character, which will be radically altered by the proposed medium to high density development. The existing amenities (shops, schools, parks, sporting facilities) will be placed under significant strain by the additional numbers, and the character of the proposed development will compromise access and enjoyment of these amenities.
    The proposed development is for medium to high density housing, which by its very nature inevitably tends to attract purchasers of investment properties. These properties are therefore often occupied by tenants and not by property owners. The owners of the properties are often remote from the properties, and often reside in another suburb, district or state. (Under current legislation, the owners of investment properties may even reside overseas and their purchase may be supported by a NSW Government grant.)
    Tenants, landlords and owner-occupiers each have a very different perspective on amenities, services and infrastructure. Inevitably, owners of investment properties will seek to maximise their income in the short to medium term, and they may have little investment in the long term future of the area. A medium to high density development in central Whitebridge is therefore likely to confer a permanent and negative social impact on the suburb of Whitebridge.
    Currently, Whitebridge is an area that is attractive to residents of all ages and social backgrounds. It is an ideal environment in which to raise a family, and yet also an ideal area in which to retire. Furthermore, the existing housing, services and amenities make it attractive to young professionals and students.
    There is no doubt that the area in question is suitable for development, and it could be argued that it is in need of development. However, there is also no doubt, given its central location, size and prominence that any such development should be particularly sensitive to the existing character of the suburb, and should be seen as an opportunity to enhance, rather than detract from, the unique character of the area. A medium to low density development, with some open public spaces and limited cafeteria/restaurant facilities, would provide an opportunity for such enhancement.

    Infrastructure, Stormwater, Sewerage:
    The proposed development will place a huge burden on the infrastructure in this area, and it is argued that the existing infrastructure will not cope with the additional demand.
    Public services, such as stormwater, sewerage and public transport, are likely to be significantly compromised by the proposed development, and such services will require to be altered or upgraded to meet increased demand.
    This area has a significant proportion of elderly and young residents, including school-age children (a high school in Whitebridge, as mentioned in the section on Safety above, and a primary school in nearby Dudley), and the proposed development will compromise their access to and enjoyment of local public amenities, such as bus services.

    Precedent for Future Developments:
    The area under development is one of the largest, if not the largest, to be undertaken in the Whitebridge/Dudley area in recent history. It is also in a very central location within Whitebridge. Indeed, it is in the very centre, and is clearly visible from the road and footpath when travelling through Whitebridge in all directions. In fact, one could not enter or leave Whitebridge without seeing and being affected by the area in question.
    Given its location and sheer scale, therefore, there is a great responsibility on the planners of this development “to get it right”. The proposed development clearly does not do that. The development is not in keeping with the existing developments and housing in the area.
    This area could alternatively provide an opportunity for low density housing, an open park area for recreation and relaxation, and perhaps one or two coffee shops. A development of this kind would enhance, rather than detract from, the character of this pleasant and popular residential area.
    If the proposed development is allowed to proceed, it will forever alter the character of the Whitebridge/Dudley area to its detriment, and will potentially set a precedent for further high-density or other inappropriate developments in the future.

    Signed

    David Gleadhill (Dr) MB ChB FRCP FRCS FCEM FACEM
    Consultant Emergency Physician
    DUDLEY NSW 2290

  99. Phillip Geary commented

    I am an academic at the University of Newcastle and also a resident of Lake Macquarie City, I am making this submission as I oppose the above development in its current form.

    As an academic I have taught environmental planning for over 10 years in the Bachelor of Environmental Science degree and am familiar with the regulations governing land use and development in NSW. I am sure Council is aware of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (1979) in that it must determine a development application by taking into consideration many different matter such as the suitability of the site for the development, and of course the public interest. I understand that in this particular case the consent authority is the Joint Regional Planning Panel so I strongly recommend that the Council oppose the development in its representations to the JRPP.

    As a resident of Dudley and frequent user of the Whitebridge shopping area, I would like to add that Council has already done a particularly poor job in guiding the current form of the shopping centre. There are significant traffic problems in the morning and afternoon usually associated with the traffic along Lonus Avenue from Whitebridge High School. The expansion in the last few years to the northern side of Burwood Road has exacerbated these problems. Traffic parking and pedestrians crossing there have been made worse by Council’s short-sighted decision to allow traffic to enter this area from the roundabout. Without any further approved development at Whitebridge, there is a need to review the current arrangements at the shopping centre to deal with improving the existing traffic management situation.

    Given the nature of the obvious problems associated with the current developments there, it therefore is incomprehensible that Council could consider the current application in its current form. The proposal to allow 87 medium density houses and four commercial units on what is actually a small parcel of land is a clear overdevelopment of the site. I understand from the plans that access is to be solely from Kopa Street to Lonus Avenue so the addition of hundreds more vehicles to the local road network in the morning and evening will result in traffic congestion and further parking problems. I would anticipate further pedestrian injuries at the shopping centre crossing, as well as vehicle accidents associated with them leaving the roundabout to enter the inadequate shopping centre parking area.

    What is proposed is an overdevelopment of the site and is not appropriate given the land available and the surrounding existing residential and commercial development at Whitebridge. It is just simply an example of bad planning. Whitebridge shopping centre is already an example of bad planning with piecemeal development and sloppy traffic solutions for the local community. Another larger ill-conceived development as proposed would result in the traffic management issues already mentioned. On the basis of what is proposed the development DA number: 1774/2013 should not be approved,

  100. Deirdre Winter commented

    To the General Manager,

    DA 1774/2013 – Development of Dudley Road/Kopa Street

    I am a resident of Whitebridge and I am strongly opposed to the proposed development of Dudley Road and Kopa Street.

    I often walk to the shops or park with my grandson from Station Street. I am concerned about the safety of walking with him in the event of an addition of 87 dwellings and their cars in the centre of the neighbourhood.

    I am also concerned about the traffic congestion that will occur. There will also be a dramatic increase in the number of pedestrians using the walkways and crossings, which will slow down the movement of traffic past the shops.

    This development is not in keeping with the current character of Whitebridge. Whitebridge is a neighbourhood with a village-like atmosphere. An 87 unit, 2 to 3 storey development is totally out of character for this area. It will impact negatively on the atmosphere of the neighbourhood.

    The proposed development also looks out of place in a neighbourhood where most dwellings are single-storey houses. Although it is inevitable that the area will, over time, increase in density and house more 2-storey dwellings, to do so on such a large piece of land, in the heart of the neighbourhood, without providing any green space or any public access, will have devastating consequences for our community.

    I am also concerned about the potential for an increase in crime, especially when the development has not been planned to allow for integration with the exisiting community. This will cause a feeling of ”us” and ”them”, which promotes crime. The residents of the proposed development will feel no sense of responsibilty toward our community if they feel isolated from it.

    While it is inevitable that this land will be development, it is extremely important that it be done properly. The development must be appropriate for the area and reflect good design principle. The proposed development does neither of these things.

    Thank you.

  101. Kimberley Broughton commented

    I am a resident of Redhead and am deeply concerned about the proposed development of Dudley Road/Kopa Street.

    DENSITY:
    This is a gross over-development of the site. The majority of Whitebridge is single-storey, detached single-family homes. This development is not in keeping with the character of Whitebridge.

    TRAFFIC CONGESTION:
    I often use the Whitebridge shops as a convenient place to stop and shop. It has increasingly become harder to find parking since the erection of the fence around the proposed development site. The addition of 87 dwellings will totally detract from the convenience of using Whitebridge shops, thus negatively impacting on business there.

    SAFETY:
    I feel concerned for safety if this development is approved. Safety will be an issue when using the shops and when crossing busy Dudley Road with my two small children. Additionally, I am concerned for my children’s future safety when they attend Whitebridge High as a result of traffic congestions and due to the possibility of an increase in crime and anti-social behaviour which is often associated with developments of this type.

    SOCIAL IMPACT:
    Whitebridge currently enjoys a relaxed, village atmosphere which is apprpriate for an area accommodating a pre-school, long daycare centre, highschool, park, tennis courts and access to the Fenleigh Track. This village atmosphere will be severely compromised if this development is to go ahead in its current form as it is in stark contrast with the character of the suburb.

    PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS:
    As a resident of Redhead, I am extremely concerned about the even wider implications this development will have on the land once ear-marked for the ’East Charlestown Bypass’. If this type of development is approved for Whitebridge, we may be faced with the same unsavoury concept in Redhead, as will the residents of suburbs along that entire environmental corridor.

    Council has a responsibility to its current and future residents to ensure appropriate, quality developments in its suburbs.

  102. Dean Broughton commented

    I am a resident of Redhead and have many concerns about the development proposed for Dudley Road and Kopa Streets, Whitebridge.

    TRAFFIC CONGESTION from the development of 87 units in the village centre is a huge concern, especially when considering the suburb is a gateway to Dudley and Redhead.

    SAFETY, as a result of this traffic, is also a huge concern, especially when considering the number of pedestrians attempting to use the pathways and pedestrian crossings when accessing the shops, park, tennis courts, high school, daycare centre and preschool.

    These are great concerns for me when considering my children will attend Whitebridge High.

    Of great concern to me also is the PRECEDENT that will be set for this type of development to be planned for other parcels of vacant land along the Fernleigh Track, including land in Redhead. Whilst development is desirable and inevitable, it must be appropriate and sustainable development that contributes to, not detracts from, our neighbourhoods.

    Council must consider not only the residents of Whitebridge, but also the residents of the greater area who will be negatively affected if the development goes ahead in its proposed form.

  103. Philip Andrew Carter commented

    This is a totally inappropriate over-development for the area. There would be significant adverse impacts for local residents and those using the Whitebridge hub for shopping, schooling and access to nearby suburbs. The land may be suitable for development at about half the density proposed.

  104. Brenda May Carter commented

    I strongly object to this proposed over-development. Its high housing density is totally out of character for the area and would create too great a burden on the local infrastructure. It would significantly downgrade the quality of life for existing residents and create congestion on local roads, including access to Whitebridge High School, shops and neighbouring suburbs.

  105. Sarah Purvis commented

    I strongly oppose the development at Whitebridge Kopa St due to its extremely poor design, lack of green space and communal meeting areas, traffic problems that will be caused, the height and density not fitting with the existing community, stormwater and sewerage not being adequately addressed, safety concerns that will result, especially for school and preschool children.
    This is a huge overdevelopment of the poorest quality.
    Whitebridge is an increasingly popular area to live and should be developed appropriately, with good design, quality materials and cutting-edge energy efficient provisions.
    The proposed development is thoughtless, careless and irresponsible. It will become and embarrassment for the suburb, and for the Lake Macquarie Council area.

  106. Lisa Bargwanna commented

    I oppose the proposed development of Dudley Rd/ Kopa St.

    I often use the shops at Whitebridge on my way home from work, as it is convenient. This development will ensure that Whitebridge is no longer convenient, and instead will become a place to avoid!

    I have friends who live in the area, and I believe their safety, and the safety of their children, will be compromised.

    The proposed devlopment is in stark contrasts to its surroundings and will render the suburb extremely unappealing. It will detract from its attractiveness - both aesthetically and as in being desirable to live there.

    I am extremely concerned about what will happen to other large pieces of vacant land if this inappropriate development goes ahead. I live near the Fernleigh Track at Belmont and am concerned that this nightmare that Whitebridge is facing could happen to us, too.

    A development needs to match the community and this development certainly does not do that. It should not be approved in its current form.

  107. Brett Suprano commented

    The proposed development at Whitebridge is not only a gross overdevelopment, it is poorly planned, poorly designed and irresponsible to the existing and future residents of the area.

    The sewerage and stormwater provisions are severely inadequate and will cause huge problems for the area, especially the Fernleigh Track.

    The lack of green space and communal meeting areas inside the development will spur social problems, which will manifest out in the wider community. Crime and anti-social behaviour will be only one result of this.

    The lack of sustainable-energy provisions is irresponsible and extremely backward in this day and age. Additionally, the entire layout of the dwellings is in direct opposition to good planning principles when considering energy use.

    The lack of public access and public thoroughfare opposes all modern research into crime prevention and integration of new developments with the exisiting community.

    Council must take great care when reviewing the plans and reading these submissions to ensure correct and intelligent decisions are made. The development must not go ahead in its current form.

  108. James Pheils commented

    The proposed development at Whitebridge should not go ahead for many reasons.
    It is poorly designed.
    It is of a low standard and is low quality.
    There is no public access for cars or pedestrians which will isolate the development from the rest of the community.
    It is over-development . The density is too high for the area.
    It will cause more raffic problems, especially at school start and finishing times.
    There are no green spaces or communal meeting areas in the development.
    The Fernleigh Track is in danger of being used as the 'backyard' for residents since they have no outdoor space.
    There are problems with the sewerage and stormwater for the development.
    It is unattractive, aesthetically.
    There will be safety issues for children attending the schools in the area.
    As the father of 2 children who will be attending Whitebridge High, I am also concerned that the area will become unsafe due to higher crime and anti-social behaviour.
    I am concerned about all the suburbs along the Fernleigh Track having developments of this low calibre if this approved.
    This development is entirely inappropriate for the area and will set a bad precedent.

  109. Maureen Brian commented

    www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/364483

    I wish to comment on application 364483 at 142-146 Dudley Road, Whitebridge (DA1774/2013). I am opposed to the development in its current form for the following reasons:
    1) It is not in keeping with other dwellings in Whitebridge and surrounding suburbs. The development has too many dwellings for the space available. I understand that medium-density housing is to be a preferred option near transport corridors – this area definitely is not a public transport corridor – in fact it is served by buses that only come once an hour. Consequently for most people who would live in this complex, cars would be the main form of transport.
    2) The number of extra cars in the area would lead to severe traffic congestion. Already there are major traffic problems at peak times because of the proximity of Whitebridge High School, a daycare centre, Fernleigh Track and of course, the Whitebridge shops, not to mention the surrounding residential areas. There is a lot of pedestrian activity in the area as well.
    3) Because of all the extra cars, parking at the shops will be very difficult – it already is a problem because of inadequate parking spaces
    4) Safety of pedestrians will be compromised because of the parking problems and traffic congestion.
    5) Access into and out of the development via Kopa Street is totally inadequate. The impact of the development on the lifestyle of the residents who live in that street will be major. Those who live nearby will be greatly impacted also.
    6) The social impact on the whole local area will be huge. When you have the number of extra people that a development of that size would generate in a small area like Whitebridge shops and nearby streets, then there are bound to be negative social issues relating to it.
    7) There are no green areas for children to play in.
    8) It’s too close to Fernleigh Track.
    9) It’s a poor precedent for future developments.

  110. Aletha Weir commented

    To Whom It May Concern,

    I wish to object to the proposed development DA 1774-2013 in Whitebridge.

    I regularly visit the area to see family and friends and to use the Fernleigh Track. I believe this proposal is an extreme over development and although I do not object to the development of this vacant land I believe it needs to suit the area in which it will be built.

    I believe that the medium density zoning requirements and the LMCC Lifestyle 2030 strategy could both be met, and the area preserved, with a development with far fewer dwellings. The small Whitebridge area cannot cope with this level of development density. I believe it is inappropriate for the following reasons;

    · Visual eyesore created by 3 storey units alongside 1 storey dwellings and the Fernleigh track reserve

    · Traffic and parking congestion created by 200 extra vehicles

    · Lack of suitable vehicle access (one entry/exit point off a very busy Avenue)

    · Lack of personal green space

    · Lack of communal green space

    · Lack of amenities in Whitebridge

    · Social impact of residents living so close together in a suburban area

    · Impact on the current residents

    I believe to resolve these issues the density should be between 40 and 50 dwellings with a maximum of 2 storeys.

    This development should be an asset to the area and should integrate with the surrounding village and natural landscape.

  111. Renae Conroy commented

    This is a terrible overdevelopment of the site.
    It is against all good design principles.
    There is no provision for energy efficient design.
    It will cause traffic problems and safety issues.
    It will look very out of place in the suburb. The density is too high and 3 storey is too high in a single-storey suburb.
    It will cause social problems.
    I visit friends in the area often and their concerns are very justified.
    Their suburb is at risk. This development should not go ahead in this form.

  112. Alison Angus commented

    The proposed development at Whitebridge between Kopa St and Dudley Rd is entirely inappropriate for the area.
    It will cause traffic problems.
    The majority three storey design is not in agreement with the surrounding dwellings of majority 1 storey.
    Safety of pedestrians will be at risk as a result of such an increase in traffic.
    The village-feel of the suburb will be compromised.
    Stormwater and sewerage are inadequate.
    The beauty of the Fernleigh Track at this point will be negatively impacted. Further, this could be a precedent for other vacant land along the track to be developed in a similar, inappropriate manner.
    The development is too dense - too many dwellings with no green space.
    The design is of a very low standard and is not forward-thinking.
    Whitebridge deserves a much better quality development than this.

  113. Lynne D commented

    To Whom It May Concern,

    I wish to object to the proposed development DA 1774-2013 in Whitebridge.

    I agree with all of the above!

  114. Renae Conroy commented

    The development at Kopa St and Dudley Rd Whitebridge will cause huge problems, not only for the suburb, but for surrounding suburbs and users of the Fernleigh Track. These problems will be irreversible. I have friends who live in the area whom I regularly visit. Their concerns are justified.
    The lack of public access to the site will cause alienation of its residents which leads to social problems. If people do not feel part of a community, then they feel no responsibility towards it, and this causes crime.
    The density of this development is inappropriate for the area. The amount of dwellings should be halved at least. Gren space is also need to stop the residents using the Fernleigh Track as their 'hang-out'. This could cause the track to become an unsafe and unpleasant place for cyclists and pedestrians.
    The Fernleigh Track is at great risk if this development goes ahead, as a precedent could be set for more land along it to be overdeveloped. We risk losing the beauty of the track.
    This development in no way reflects any good, modern design principles. It is already outdated and does not suit the suburb.
    This is a fantastic opportunity to do something great in the suburb of Whitebridge. We should develop our suburbs in the right way, so we can be proud of Lake Macquarie.

  115. Douglas Kolisnyk commented

    Doug Kolisnyk
    10 Hudson Street
    Whitebridge 2290
    10/02/2014
    Lake Macquarie City Council
    The General Manager
    PO Box 1906
    Hunter Region Mail Centre 2310

    Dear Sir/Ma’am,
    Re: DA number: 1774/2013
    Address: 142-146 Dudley Rd and 2-4 Kopa St, Whitebridge, 2290
    Applicant’s name: SNL Building Constructions Pty Ltd
    I have been a resident of Whitebridge for 25 years, and have lived in Redhead and Dudley previously. We have raised two children who attended Primary schools in both outlying suburbs and Whitebridge High School. We have always had a good rapport with neighbours and friends who reside in the wider community and have also used the Fernleigh track extensively in past and present times. I wish to register my opposition to the proposed development at 142-146 Dudley Rd and 2-4 Kopa St, Whitebridge.
    I have referred to the proposal’s Social Impact Assessment (SIA), the Crime Risk Assessment Report (CRAR), the Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE), Statement of Environmental Effects (SoEE), Statement of Environmental Planning Policy,. REFERRAL RESPONSE CP – Community Land and the Transport Report by Better Transport Futures (TR).
    My concerns are listed below:
    • SOCIAL IMPACT :
    Density
    This high density proposed development of 87 units, up to 3 storeys high, 2-4 bedrooms and 4 commercial properties on a 2.2 hectare block is out of character and proportion with the surrounding neighborhood.
    LMCC response to SNL’s SIA statement:
    “92% of all dwellings in Whitebridge are detached and just 5.8% and 2.2% of dwellings are townhouses and units respectively, there are also a number of social impacts that will arise as a result of a high density development in a predominately low density area. These impacts include:
    o a loss of sense of place,
    o increased pressure on local community and recreation infrastructure, and
    o alienation of the ‘new residents’ from the established community.
    These impacts have not been investigated in the Social Impact Assessment. The most effective mitigation method for addressing these impacts is to ‘scale back’ the development in order to ensure that the change is incremental, which will enable the community to adjust to the changes over time.”

    This density is inconsistent with Council’s statements when the land was rezoned. Council --estimated approximately 50 dwellings may be developed in the 3.1ha hectares of land to be rezoned 2(2) Residential (Urban Living). The high density, design and height of the proposed development are inconsistent with LMCC Lifestyle 2030 Strategy which recognizes that density should be lower at the urban periphery.

    Pedestrian safety
    Pedestrian safety will be severely compromised in the vicinity of the proposed development.At the ends of Lonus Ave is a major regional high school with over 1100 students and staff as well as a long day care centre caring for over 80 children. Tumpoa St, a side street to Lonus Ave, also has a pre –school with over 30 children and 6 staff per day. There is also a church, tennis court and playground regularly visited by adults and children. The only entrance and exit to the proposed development is Kopa Street, which is opposite the tennis courts and 100 metres from the day care centre.
    Morning and afternoon traffic along Lonus Ave and Waran Road at school start and finish times, is a constant flow of cars and buses. Lonus Ave is one way in, one way out. There are NO pedestrian crossings on Lonus Ave or Waran Road. A major community concern is the proposed loss of the pedestrian and cycle track accessing the Whitebridge shopping precinct and short cutting from the “white” bridge to the high school. This track has been used by the local people for over one hundred years and will add significant time to their journey if this track is abolished.

    LMCC’s report considers this to be “one of the biggest social issues resulting from” the proposal and that it has not been addressed in the SIA. It notes:
    “ This pathway is not just used by the users of the Fernleigh Track, but also by school children who live in the area to the south and east of the development (the Whitebridge residential area), to travel to school. There is also a well-used informal track providing a direct ‘desire line’ link from the Fernleigh Track to the Whitebridge shops.”

    Design
    The design is driven by the desire to maximise the number of units, rather than by quality design principles. The density/ height (majority of units being 3 storeys), is completely out of sync with the adjoining neighborhood and negatively impacts on the privacy of adjoining residences. Integration/connectivity with existing community is nonexistent, green space and outdoor play areas are lacking, amenity (social, recreational,visual,design)for new and existing residents haven’t been addressed, ESD for dwellings is poor as half face directly west and will require air conditioning during most months, and invasion of privacy for adjoining properties.

    The Lower Hunter Strategy states the “development of increased densities within renewal areas should deliver quality architecture that respects local character. This will be achieved through well connected and usable public spaces supporting accessible and vital centres.” (p28)
    The proposed development is characterised by repetitive buildings, harshly linear, visually unattractive and is an eyesore on the Whitebridge skyline.

    Crime
    The design and density of the proposed development necessitates a range of measures to be implemented in order to avoid an increase in crime in the local area. SNL’S own statements are ‘their development has the potential to put the residents of Whitebridge at risk through crime and anti-social behaviour’.Obviously the design of the development should be changed!
    SNL’s CRA states that Whitebridge is characterised “by low density residential development” (p2). It outlines principles to mitigate the risk of crime: surveillance, access control, territorial reinforcement, activity and space management. (p7) This relates more to a low security prison than a suburban development with the majority of these strategies having an unfavourable impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood.
    Amenity
    LMCC website, SEPP 65 Principles:
    “Good design provides amenity through the physical, spatial and environmental quality of a development.
    Optimising amenity requires appropriate room dimensions and shapes, access to sunlight, natural ventilation, visual and acoustic privacy, storage, indoor and outdoor space, efficient layouts and service areas, outlook and ease of access for all age groups and degrees of mobility.”

    No mention is made of accessibility for the mixed use units provided. It’s noted that none of these units are meeting accessibility requirements from either the entrances or the car park area. It is concerning to note a failure to address the impact this development will have on the current amenity of the shopping area, as shopkeepers are losing trade due to current traffic issues.
    There is a neglectful shortage of open and recreational spaces for this development, which will include approximately 200 residents, including children. Green areas, playgrounds, garden spaces or vegetable patches, Communal spaces, are a necessity for the social interaction / wellbeing of residents.
    The fenced off conservation zone which was previously accessible to the public will be, again creating a barrier between the old and the new residents.

    SNL’s SIA comments:
    “RMS controlled land opposite the site on Dudley Rd presents a good opportunity for an urban park.” (p5) ‘ This report suggests Council provide a park at another site: SNL is denying all responsibility to provide future residents with any outdoor green space and ‘passing the buck’ so it will be someone else’s problem to deal with.

    In LMCC’s Referral Response CP – Community Land.”
    ‘The proposal for an urban park was discussed with the proponent, but it appears that this advice was not supported. Consequently, Council reduced its requirements for the urban town park from 5,000m² to an absolute minimum area of 2,000m² m in an effort to broker an agreement.’ (p2)

    ‘According to the LM S94 CP No. 1, the required contribution for open space is 45.82 m2 per person or 114.8 m2 per lot. This development contains 87 dwellings. Based on the ratio of 114.8 m2 per lot, the open space requirement would be 9,987 m2 (Table 1, page 9). In its negotiations with the proponent, Council reduced its requirements to 2,000 m2 in order to achieve a positive community outcome, but this has been rejected by the proponent’. (p5)
    This is a direct breach by SNL to disregard councils prior negotiations. The parcel of land in LMCC’s response has been used for multiple dwellings where it was negotiated to be set aside for an Urban park which will be assessed in accord with LM S94 CP No.1 / 2004.

    • TRAFFIC IMPACT:
    School based pedestrian traffic / Traffic management
    Little pedestrian access within the complex itself. Units abut the road kerb forcing pedestrians to use the roadway as a pedestrian thorough fare. It is of some concern that the development does not provide more suitable pedestrian access within the complex as children make up a large proportion of pedestrian traffic. Increased pedestrian traffic around the Whitebridge shopping precinct or the associated community facilities such as the park, tennis court, child care centre and the local high school has not been dealt with in the assessment. There have already been two high school students knocked down last year, which wasn’t mentioned in the assessment.

    The development site is currently fully fenced denying Local residents currently have no access to a historical pedestrian thoroughfare which connected the North Eastern side of Whitebridge with its local shops, post box, bus stops, pedestrian crossing and doctor’s surgery, which is also part of the Fernleigh Track cycleway infrastructure and is identified in the Lake Macquarie Cycling Strategy. Residents and track users will now be forced to access the shopping precinct by walking along Kopa Street then Lonus Avenue and Dudley Road, or along Station St and Dudley Road. As well as adding approximately half a kilometre, the second option does not have paved footpaths, fringes a well-used street and requires either (a) crossing a very narrow footbridge and then walking across the vehicular exit in the car park, or (b) using an ill-placed pedestrian crossing which leads onto another intersection which doesn’t have a pedestrian crossing. The elderly, children and young people, dog-walkers, cyclists and parents with prams are exposed to safety issues in this regard.

    New residents will have direct access to the Whitebridge neighbourhood shops. Access to other community facilities: the child care centre, the playground, the tennis courts, Charlestown East Primary School and the local High school are all situated on the north side of Lonus Avenue. All residents will be required to cross Lonus avenue to access these facilities. No pedestrian crossings exist on Lonus Ave and this is a road which is now operating above the desired capacity set by the RMS at peak times for a shared area with vehicular and high pedestrian traffic. The impact of increased congestion, including stacking at the corners of Kopa and Lonus and the Dudley Rd roundabout, on pedestrian visibility and safety and the requirement for more appropriately positioned pedestrian crossings throughout road networks has not been properly assessed. The pedestrian/cyclist and vehicle conflict produces safety issues which are all too apparent to the community and need to be assessed.

    Section 4 of their SIA Impact Assessment SNL state “Population increase may overwhelm existing infrastructure and services.” SNL then comment, “Proposal is consistent with planning strategy. Infrastructure and service growth should have been incorporated into forward planning and reflected in contributions and works programs.” Meaningless statement which avoids providing any specific clues about whether this has been done, how it will happen, who will make it happen and when it will happen.
    Parking/Transport
    SNL’s assessment stated the high demand for off-street parking at “the Dudley (sic) Neighbourhood shopping centre” and the need for high turnover on this off-street parking. For shopkeepers to retain commercial viability this turn-over is also required. It reiterates at 4.5.3 “There is a low demand for parking on Lonus Avenue and Kopa Street...predominantly used in association with nearby residences and tennis courts.” Omitted here is recognition of the use associated with the preschool and the local playground. Since the report was written [17/7/13] and a fence erected by SNL around the site [8/11/13], parking on Lonus Ave is associated with the use from the overflow of employee and customer parking from the shopping area. Low demand for parking on Lonus Avenue has transformed into high demand parking.
    SNL have acknowledged the higher than average rate of car ownership in this suburb and have made provision for parking assessed as above requirement according to the DCP in the residential section. SNL is relying on the non-timed parking in the shopping area to provide some visitor and delivery/service vehicle parking for the development [4.1.8.SoEE]. Existing businesses /residents will be disadvantaged by 87 dwellings and 4 commercial premises relying on existing parking which currently does not meet needs in peak periods.
    Development occupants, whose car parking space/s prove insufficient given the allowance of 1½ private space on average, will access the visitor parking included within the development. Overflow traffic will be forced from the proposed development into the shopping area. Parking in front of the shops opposite the development, timed to one hour and therefore only suitable for quick turnover is very limited. Refer to the Maynew Group Pty Ltd.’s submissions for more detail on parking issues.
    Suggested action
    I request an independent traffic assessment where transparency, scope, and accuracy will allow for quality data which in turn will be applied realistically to this specific neighbourhood environment. I also request genuine consideration of the negative contributions this development would have on the amenity and liveability of this neighbourhood.
    I am not comforted by SNL’s projections of future solutions when, on so many points, they have failed to acknowledge problematic existing conditions. More importantly, SNL fails to realize that this is an infill development whose density wasn’t envisaged when this site was re-zoned. Wishful thinking will not erase the many attendant traffic issues of this proposal, nor can it over-ride the physical impossibility of squeezing in 87 units, 4 commercial sites and upwards of 200 cars into an area whose road infrastructure has already been deemed to have stretched to the environmental limits of its capacity.

    • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
    Wildlife Corridor management
    “Wildlife Corridor – Proposed Development Exacerbates Bottleneck at Whitebridge” ‘The vegetation adjacent to and within this development represents a corridor that may be critical to the movement, dispersal and interchange of genetic material of threatened species from Glenrock State Conservation Area, the Awabakal Nature Reserve and Jewells Wetland. The specific section of “corridor” at the proposed development site needs to be conserved, enhanced and managed to ensure that it is functional.’ This statement is generated by Dr Carmen McCartney, Ecologist/Science Manager, please refer to her full analysis in her submission.
    Impact on existing infrastructure.

    Almost the total area of the proposed development is planned for “medium density” residential housing, and “Urban Centre” development, excluding those parts formally zoned as Conservation 7(2) under Lake Macquarie Environmental Plan 2004 (Amendment 53). The Conservation Zone along the SE side of the site is 20m wide except closer to Dudley Rd where it is only approximately 9m wide.
    The proposed housing planned in the DA as submitted is essentially of linear mult

  116. K Cox commented

    I wish to object to the proposed development DA 1774-2013 in Whitebridge.

    I believe this proposal is an extreme over development and although I do not object to the development of this vacant land I believe it needs to suit the area in which it will be built.

    I am opposed to the development in its current form for the following reasons:

    1) It is not in keeping with other dwellings in Whitebridge and surrounding suburbs. The development has too many dwellings for the space available. I understand that medium-density housing is to be a preferred option near transport corridors – this area definitely is not a public transport corridor – in fact it is served by buses that only come once an hour. Consequently for most people who would live in this complex, cars would be the main form of transport.

    2) The number of extra cars in the area would lead to severe traffic congestion. Already there are major traffic problems at peak times because of the proximity of Whitebridge High School, two Childcare Centres, Fernleigh Track, Tennis Courts, Cricket Oval and of course, the Whitebridge shops, not to mention the surrounding residential areas. There is a lot of pedestrian activity in the area as well.

    3) Because of all the extra cars, parking at the shops will be very difficult – it already is a problem because of inadequate parking spaces.

    4) Safety of pedestrians will be compromised because of the parking problems and traffic congestion.

    5) Access into and out of the development via Kopa Street is totally inadequate. The address of this development is Dudley Road, why not make an entry and exit onto Dudly road rather than direct all the traffic into Kopa St and Lonus Ave? It may also be beneficial to consider blocking the end of Kopa street on the western side of Lonus Ave to prefent major traffic past the tennis and cricket sports area, as this is a major pedestrian risk during weekend sport events with young children.

    6) Some sigle level dwellings in this development would be highly beneficial for our aging demographic and the disabled.This location would be highly desirable for these groups with ease of access to facilities/shops.

    7) There are no green areas for children to play in.

    8) It’s too close to Fernleigh Track.

    9) It’s a poor precedent for future developments.

  117. Stephen Beautement commented

    Dear Lake Macquarie council,

    I would like to register my objection to the proposed development DA 1774-2013 in Whitebridge.

    My concerns focus on the safety of my four young children, all of whom attend either play group at the local church ( on the Whitebridge roundabout), Birralee long day care, Charlestown East public school or (in the near future) Whitebridge high school. We also frequent the beautiful park, also on the roundabout at Whitebridge.

    I feel that the increased vehicle movement on my street and other local roads will endanger my young family whether at home or at any of the above local facilities.

    I feel that the style and density of the proposed development is completely out of place when considering the existing surrounding environment. I fear that the demographic this type of housing will attract will detrimentally affect the safety and security of my community.

    Sincerely

    Stephen Beautement

  118. Joshua and Aimee Jeffress commented

    My concerns are as follows;

    1) The effect of extra traffic will have on the surrounding areas i.e. noise, access to and from private properties, ability of the roads to withstand the additional load & traffic flow.

    2) Pedestrian safety given local demographic, i.e Mothers, Children, Elderly.

    3) The ability of the local infrastructure to accommodate such a dramatic increase in population i.e. day care, education facilities, playgrounds, sporting facilities and green spaces

    4) Will the Furnleigh Track be able to safely accommodate the additional patrons. We are particularly concerned about the safety of children, mothers and the elderly. It is already over capacity at certain times, and there have been a number of incidences.

    5) Access and Parking to Whitebridge Shops. We are concerned that patron parking will flow into residential areas.

    We are not opposed to development. However what is proprosed is not in keeping with the local environment or our community. We wish to see this proposal modified to enhance our community.

  119. Janelle Graves commented

    Reference DA-1774/2013

    The current plan for the new development between Kopa Street and Dudley Road Whitebridge is totally unsuitable for the area.

    A major issue when considering this potential influx of an extra 100+ cars is the risk to life that will eventuate from the large increase in traffic flow in the surrounding single lane streets. These surrounding streets are presently very busy. High-risk driving is already evident in the area by frustrated drivers coping with the present traffic conditions. DRIVING PAST WHITEBRIDGE SHOPS AND THROUGH THE ROUNDABOUT IS VERY DANGEROUS NOW!!!!! It will be extremely dangerous to drive in the area with a large increase in traffic flow.

    In this plan there are a large amount of dwellings with minimal space in all directions from each other which does not allow for enough privacy. This design does not inspire a peaceful harmonious neighbourhood, but instead there is potential for disharmony. One noisy neighbour would probably be heard by many other home owners.

    Car parking on the street would also interfere with traffic flow and safety.

    There is very little park/green area for walking the dog or children playing.

    Another is the single entrance/exit. I live nearby and nearly had to evacuate from my home because of the recent bush fires. I had a choice of exit streets for a quick escape by car. In this area there is a real threat of bush fires. One exit only, gives these residents one exit option, which seems very unsafe.

    The overcrowding evident in this plan is not in keeping with any housing estate in the nearby area.
    This huge number of dwellings is not appropriate for the area. In its current form this plan is wrought with many negative attributes. Safety for the new occupants and the neighbourhood must be a prime concern. We are all hoping for a new housing development that will compliment and benefit Whitebridge.

  120. Catherine Hodgson commented

    I live at Dudley and use the Fernleigh Track to cycle and play tennis at Whitebridge. I am concerned about the increase in traffic volume and the safety at the Whitebridge roundabout. I have seen 91 dwellings are going to be built and some buildings 5 storeys high. I think the density is far too much as this suggest a city not a suburb. Will there be sufficient parking? Is there enough green space? What about mine subsidence. I think this development will destroy the character of Whitebridge and am opposed to this number of dwellings.

  121. Bridgette and Kelly Davis commented

    Reference DA-1774/2013

    I am a resident of Whitebridge, I live at 2 Station Street opposite the fernleigh track. My husband and I chose Whitebridge because it is a great place to bring up a young family. At present there is very little in the way of footpaths in the area. The one path I used to use to walk my 1yr old son and dog was sold to SNL and will be developed over. At any rate I need to be extremely cautious when I push my son's pram and am walking my dog as I often have to walk on the road. If a development of this size were to go ahead, it simply wouldn't be safe to walk as the current infrastructure is inadequate. Should I get in my car to drive 500m to go to the shops?

    What about the health benefits of exercising? Isn't lack of exercise and obesity a major concern in the Hunter region?

    What about the effects on the environment? There is a footpath (now fenced off) that was always a public walkway. This was a pleasant walk as there are around 4 mature eucalypts that grow there. To cut these down for development is ridiculous as these trees are undoubtedly a part of the ecosystem of glenrock reserve. If this section is built on it will become an eyesore looking down from Hudson st .

    Pedestrian safety is a major concern - there is a high school at the end of Lonus Ave, a childcare centre at the other end of Lonus Ave and tennis courts where lots of children play tennis. This development proposes to have a minimum of 184 extra cars coming straight out of what is currently a cul de sac straight past the childcare centre and tennis courts. At present there is only 2 exits for residents in Gateshead, Redhead, Dudley and Whitebridge to go north to the city - Burwood Rd and Waran Rd. I often travel down Waran rd where there are no footpaths, and if there are cars parked on that road I have to cross the centre line to travel down this road - the road is not wide enough for cars travelling down there and parked cars. Also right on the blind corner is the high school carpark for parents dropping their kids off and picking them up. There are several roads feeding into Waran rd as well.

    How will this road cope with a minimum of an extra 184 cars travelling during peak hours?

    There are the negative effects on the existing cafes in Dudley Road, they will lose their sun, possibly even customers - due to height of the buildings.

    What about the bushfire dangers - how will people be able to escape? The development proposal is too close to glenrock reserve.

    Where will all the visitors park? As it is people struggle to find parking in the station st carpark on the weekends, and when this happens cars tend to park in front of our house and we lose our on-street parking.

    How many parks have been allocated per unit? If these units are rented there could be up to 3 cars per unit for the 3 bedroom units even more if couples rent rooms or if families with adult children reside in the units.

    This development should be revised to suit the surrounding suburbs and community.How can this bypass the local council and go straight to state government when these people don't live in the area? It is crazy to think that an already busy community can be so negatively impacted from one development simply because it is far too big.

    There is also the fact that one of the owners of SNL has been involved with a ICAC corruption enquiry, giving illegal donations to a Liberal MP.

  122. Matt McNeill commented

    To the general manager,

    I am a long term resident of Dudley and Charlestown of more than 30 years. as a serious cyclist I use the Fernleigh track daily to commute to and from work, and also on the weekends for longer training rides.

    I have looked closely at the plans for the proposed development and I am extremely concerned about the social and environmental impacts on the surrounding areas.

    The proposed development of 91 dwellings is completely unsuitable for the location. this is not a built up area, this is a suburb with only 1 point of entry on a single lane road.

    to have a minimum of approximately 200 extra people in this area basically living right on top of each other is ridiculous, there is no space for recreation, and the roads are not wide enough for the number of people.

    take for example the Whickham development along Throsby creek and surrounding bike path, how much extra space has been required to supplement the high density of the townhouses there! there is a huge open space around the bike path so that it is safe for users of the track and the residents have safe space for recreation. Here at Whitebridge there is nothing ! everyone will try to escape their cages by going onto the Fernleigh track. The Whickham development has 2 large intersections with traffic lights for entry and exit, what does the Whitebridge development have ? people wont be able to get out of their garage in peak times.

    The Fernleigh track is already at its most congested at Whitebridge, The Fernleigh tracks primary purpose is a bike track, and it has been a great success. If this development is approved, all of the residents will no doubt use the Fernleigh track to escape their horrible little dwellings which are on top of each other. This will create serious safety issues for users of the Fernleigh track as generally speaking pedestrians & young kids have no idea of their surroundings and wander aimlessly without warning across the centre line of the track near entry and exit points.

    The roads are so small in this development are you kidding ?! take this simple example. what happens when a large vehicle needs access to the area. say garbage recycling/ trucks ? when the truck comes to pick up the rubbish this will completely block the roads, hows anyone going to be able to get out to goto work ? what if there are renters at the propertys and there are 3 cars parked on the street, hows your truck going to pick up the rubbish and recycling? the truck wont make it around the corners! where are all the bins going to go?! This is very poor planning & design.

    The people of Whitebridge are being taken advantage of by this development, it is a blatant cash grab without any regard to the local environment or its people.

    THIS DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE OUTRIGHT REJECTED FOR FAILING TO LISTEN TO THE COMMUNITY AND THEIR CONCERNS.

    I am not against development, what would be more suitable to the area would be a architecturally designed single multistorey unit block (with the same number of dwellings) with a very large recreation area around it, with suitable access by an additional road intersection with the Whitebridge shop car park.

    The proposed development is completely unsuitable. These are just a few examples of why it is unsuitable, the other traffic issues of Kopa Street go without saying.

    Please listen to the people who live in this area, not some developer who is only trying to make a quick buck and then move on to corrupt another location.

    Thank you.
    Matt McNeill

  123. S commented

    I agree with the above comment of Matt Mcniel.

    THIS DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE OUTRIGHT REJECTED FOR FAILING TO LISTEN TO THE COMMUNITY AND THEIR CONCERNS. !!!!!!!!!!!

    Whitebridge is already a little suburb that is so busy... You drive past the shops and their busy anytime of the day and that little round about is a bottle neck come school time / late afternoon work traffic!!!!

    Something needs to be done this can't happen to whitebridge

    listen to the communtiy !!!!!!!!!!!!

  124. Philip Carter commented

    The latest proposal for these Kopa Cabanas is even more objectionable than the first. While described as "the desired future of Whitebridge,” it is not known who desires it, other than the developer (the principal being a person of interest in the ICAC). The major objection previously had been the density of the over-development - the latest plan is for even greater density, plus more stories than before, over a mine subsidence area!? There is urgent need for an independent assessment of current traffic flows over several representative days (not just on one wildly unrepresentative day as previously, which happened to be a sports day) to gauge impacts of the over-development. Further, I suggest the proposal be put on hold following the revelations at the ICAC to allow a thorough review of controversial developments such as this, involving developers adversely mentioned in the ICAC.

  125. Karina Currington commented

    Dear General Manager,
    I wish to express my objection of the updated proposal at Whitebridge, DA1774/2013. Although I am not a current resident myself, my parents house is one of the eleven that back onto the site in question.

    I feel the company in charge of this development has been completely unprofessional in the entire process, from the secretive purchase of the land initially, to the casual letterbox drop involving only the few houses directly affected, and not the wider Whitebridge community, to the farcical billboard installed on site and designed to antagonise an already enraged suburb, and then to find the DA plans were so badly flawed that they wouldn't make it past the application process.

    I feel that zero consideration has been given to any of the residents in light of this matter. They have asked for a less dense development, and the developer has upped the dwellings in response. They have asked if the infrastructure will be adjusted to suit the increase in vehicles. Yet again, no. To be even more insulting, the developers have increased the height of the buildings to 4 storeys. This type of building does not fit in with the Whitebridge landscape. It's not what the community wants. They were not consulted about renaming the main road "Whitebridge Square" which sounds like a spin off of Charlestown Square. Again, why is this now part of the DA and why do they feel the need to take it upon themselves to alter what exists now?

    On conclusion, I know this has been an emotional based objection, after all, I don't have all the technical skills of property development but I'm leaving this in your hands. You Sir, are employed by government, to look after your constituents, in regards to putting the community FIRST when assessing a DA like this. Hopefully you will take all reasons of objections into consideration when looking at this particular development.

  126. Natalie Bentley commented

    How can this application be considered when the major issues from the previous application, which was rejected, have not been addressed.?

    Over development is still a major concern and this application has increased the number of dwellings and residents. Overshadowing is another concern that has been snubbed by increasing the height of the proposed structure from previous. This application has not changed the impact the development would have on traffic congestion, parking insufficiency and pedestrian safety and definitely does not fit in with the surroundings.

    I would like to see a development that would fit in with the suburbs character and not detract from the strong appeal it currently holds. A development of half this size would be much more appropriate.

  127. Nathan croal commented

    This development should be stopped not approved because:-
    1. Developer is guilty of donating to a political party in the area that this development is in.
    2. The area should remain parkland for the community and a green corridor along the cycleway.
    3. The type of buildings the developer wants are out of character with the surrounding houses.
    4. This type of development will degrade the community and the current way of life for locals.
    5. Why should everyone else suffer for greedy developers this needs to stop.
    6. Traffic is already congested at whitebridge roundabout this will make it worse.
    7. The developement is way to high density
    8. The council should by the land back and leave it park land with the already increasing population in the area u need to provide more open spaces for lifestyle and happiness in community.
    Finally please don't approve this developement we all no it is wrong the community has spoken its time to stand up for what is right.

  128. mark bentley commented

    This development is all about the greed of this company run by Hilton Grugeon, who has shown his true colours as being a corrupt business person, perhaps he should develop land at Berrypark on his door step.
    None of the issues from the previous application have been addressed. Only complete contempt has been shown with an even worse proposal.
    I thought we lived in a democratic society where the majority ruled, it appears we live in a society where the dollar rules.
    If this land is to be developed it should be in keeping with what the majority of people want not what greedy developers want, you as councilors were voted in on what the majority of people wanted now its up to you to do your job as the majority of the people voted you in to do.
    A subdivision of house blocks would be appropriate or best of all leave it as parkland.

  129. Michele Purcell commented

    DA/1774/2013 concerns regarding this development.
    Traffic issues, there is already congestion all the time , worse on school days and weekends.

    Density of the development , not only was it ridiculous to start with but now there are more! The amount of dwellings as well as the height does in now way fit in with the surrounds

    We had an application for a small renovation at the front of our house. No neighbours objected at all. Council made us change it as they said it was not in keeping with the rest of the suburb.If this development goes ahead the way it is , I think there needs to be an inquiry into how this proposal with all the objections was passed especially with the developers recent appearance before ICAC.

    Why would you want to pass such an overdevelopment which would bring nothing but discord and disharmony to Whitebridge.

    Where do the children play ? there are very few parks as it is.

    The temporary path leading to the Fernleigh track is already a death trap , It does nothing for wheelchair and disabled access and is quite frankly disgusting.

    Please explain how our small extension on the front of our house was so objectionable and supposedly did not fit in with the local surrounds and this monstrosity up the road does!

    When is council going to act for the people it represents and stop bending to the developer , who is just in it to make money and leave the local people to deal with the fallout

    Which schools are these people going to attend , have the numbers been looked at ?

  130. Andrew Morgan commented

    The NSW Planning Dept has a opportunity to influence the developer to create a development in line with the nature of the suburb. At present the development proposal resembles a ghetto. The development could enhance a village style precinct if done tastefully and to a scale that is in line with best practice with medium scale developments. It should incorporate open space as this is the nature of the area.

    My concerns

    1. The loss of open space. The current area area was used by many people in the area as a dog recreation area, people used to fly model planes and kites and other open space activities. The loss of this is detrimental to the general health of the suburb and I believe the developer should incorporate some open space in the development to maintain the general feel of the area.

    2. Parking in the shopping area. Prior to fencing off many of the shopping centre employees would park on the grass and leave the carpark for customers. This worked well. Now cars are regurlarly paked back over the bridge and down near the day care cnetre. This is a significant safety risk and the area was not designed to cope with the amount of on street parking. The new development will also reduce the available parking in the carpark while adding more shops.

    3. Traffic - the Kopa st intersection is not designed to cope with the amount of extra traffic due to the amount of dwellings in the development. Duirng school hours the place is already gridlocked. The extra traffic will see people making irrational driving practices at a high risk area near the day care centre and where the children walk to school.

    4. Density - the amount and scale of the development is totally out of character with the rest of the suburb. It is even worse than the first one.

  131. Brenda Carter commented

    The latest proposal for the development at 142-146 Dudley Rd., Whitebridge is even more appalling than the first. The chief objection previously had been the density of the over-development - the latest plan is for even greater density, plus more storeys than before, over a mine subsidence area.
    I attended the information session at The Place, Charlestown on 9th July 2014. The developer tried to gloss over the huge concern that the local community has about the enormous impact that the development will have on traffic in Kopa Street, Lonus Avenue and Dudley Road. There is urgent need for an independent assessment of current traffic flows over several representative days (not just on one wildly unrepresentative day as previously, which happened to be a sports day) to gauge impacts of the over-development.
    Further, I strongly suggest the proposal be put on hold following the revelations at the ICAC to allow a thorough review of controversial developments such as this, involving developers adversely mentioned in the commission.

  132. Anne-Marie Abell commented

    Here I am writing another objection to this proposal :-(

    I find it hard to believe that this latest proposal is even more appalling than the first!

    All objections previously have included concern over the density of the development and now this latest plan is for even greater density and more stories, all on an area of mine subsidence!

    Come on guys, let's get real here, please.

  133. Curli Abell commented

    I can not believe that this proposal has been amended to be even worse that what it was. This development is all about greed and does not have the well being of this area in mind at all.

    NONE of the issues from the previous application have been addressed. Complete contempt has been shown with an even worse proposal.

    If this land is to be developed it should be in keeping with what the majority of people want not what greedy developers want, you as councilors were voted in to represent us, it is now up to you to do your job and represent us.

    Do not let this proposal get through as it stands.

  134. William Abell commented

    I have just one question:

    How can this application be even considered when the major issues from the previous application, which was rejected, have not been addressed?

  135. Judith Gray commented

    I am a long term resident of Whitebridge and I regularly use Dudley Road for access to Pacific Highway. I also use the Fernleigh track as a commuter.

    I am very concerned about the effect of additional traffic from the proposed development - parking is already difficult at the Whitebridge shops and I believe the additional ~ 200 vehicles likely from this development, that will be accessing Kopa Street will overload the roundabout area.

    I also have some questions about the development proposed on the Environmental 7(2) zone. I would like to know if this proposed pathway, stormwater management structures and landscaping meets the requirements for the ecological corridor.

    I also have serious concerns about the height of the proposed buildings on Dudley Road and the density of the other buildings proposed, which are not in keeping with other current developments in the suburb.

    Finally, I dispute that the dedication to Council of roads, park and conversation land is beneficial to the extent that the developers contribution S94 be waived.

    Sincerely
    Judy Gray

  136. Cate Buskin commented

    As a 40year resident of the area I endorse the many concerns expressed by the other
    residents re the proposed development.

    The density and height of the development are out of character in this suburb.

    Access issues have not been adequately addressed. ( Have council considered crossing over Fernleigh track to Station St as an additional access so Dudley road roundabout will be less congested?)

    The new proposal plan looks better than the previous one but has environmental and height issues. Surely Whitebridge shopping centre would be dwarfed by four storeys on the roadside.

    I am also concerned that the already limited parking would not be able to cater for more
    vehicles.

    I Implore council to ensure this development is scaled down to a more suitable size and density which is in harmony with the area.

  137. Laurie Mascord commented

    Re: DA/1774/2013

    I wish to object to the current development proposal. It is entirely inappropriate for a NEIGHBOURHOOD centre, which is the classification of Whitebridge as assigned by LMCC. This DA reflects the guidelines for development in a REGIONAL centre.

    Density and Design/

    With a proposed 91 dwellings, this is a gross and opportunistic over-development of the site. SNL are proposing 54 dwellings per hectare, whereas LMCC Lifestyle 2030 stipulate 30-40 dwellings per hectare. The 7(2) conservation land should be excluded from any calculation. This type of development is entirely out of sync with a suburb of majority single-family housing.

    Section 2.7 of the Lake Macquarie City Council Development Control Plan No. 1 “deals with the need for development to respond to the Local Context by identifying desirable elements of its existing character that will contribute to the future character of an area.” (page 1) The proposed development does not incorporate any of the ‘desirable elements’ of Whitebridge, nor does it reflect its ‘existing character’.

    Environmental Impact/

    The 7(2) land should also remain independent from pathways enabling permeability through the site.
    The ecological corridor must be respected as important and irreplaceable for flora and fauna and should in no way be impacted by any development.

    Social Impact/

    In their report on Increasing Density in Australia (2012), Giles-Corti, Ryan and Foster explain how environmental criminologists assert that safe neighbourhoods are characterised by greater land-use homogeneity, with less mixed-use development and more single-family housing. The proposed development is in opposition to these characteristics of safe neighbourhoods.

    Aestethically, the proposed development is imposing, shocking and unbefitting, not only for residents and shoppers, but for recreation-makers on the Fernleigh Track, which is one of the jewels in the crown of Newcastle and Lake Macquarie. The visual and atmospherical contrast between Whitebridge and the rest of the experience on the Fernleigh Track would be shameful.

    The request that developer’s contribution s94 be waived is unjustified. Dedication to council of roads, park and conservation area is not ’generous’ on the part of the developer, considering permeability through the site and open space/recreational areas are strongly recommended by Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles. Further, the ’urban space’ proposed on Dudley Rd is not something that was requested by, or even desired by, the community, due to its strong potential for anti-social behaviour. When one takes into account the developer’s plan to use public land for parts of the project (Dudley Rd for the ’urban space’ and Kopa St for private driveway to Lot 23), this request becomes not only ’cheeky’, but blatantly disrespectful.

    Safety and Traffic Problems/

    A single entry/exit point, that being Kopa Street, for 92 dwellings will clearly cause tremendous changes in traffic conditions not only in Kopa Street, but on Lonus Avenue, and the roundabout via which most drivers access Lonus Avenue. The adjacent park, which is used regularly, the tennis courts and the oval will become much less-pleasant places to frequent. This will break down community ties. The traffic along Lonus Avenue will also put families of the Birralee Long Day Care Centre at risk. Students accessing Whitebridge High School by foot along Lonus will be placed in greater danger, and families accessing Whitebridge Preschool in Tumpoa Street will be negatively affected. It is already difficult and sometimes dangerous for buses using Lonus Ave to access the high school.

    Traffic along Dudley Rd will inevitably increase, which will increase the liklihood of accidents for people attempting to turn onto this road from side-streets. It is already hazardous to do so, as is it hazardous to walk the streets of Whitebridge, particularly when attempting to cross Dudley Rd. Considering the current insurge of young families, this is in opposition to the desired character of the area.

    General/

    IF this development is approved, a precedent will be set for land of this zoning to be developed in a similarly careless manner, thus putting more of our suburbs at risk of disaffection.

    Within Whitebridge, there exists massive potential for dramatic increases in density, due to the zoning of land on Kopa Street and Lonus Avenue. In other words, these problems have the potential to become even bigger. A careful, predictive view is needed to ensure this suburb grows at a manageable rate.

    The community of Whitebridge and surrounding suburbs have clearly, confidently and justifiably stated their lack of support for this project. This must have weight against the self-gratifying intentions of a developer. Residents have communicated an understanding and acceptance of the inevitability of the site being developed; it is the nature of this development which is being rejected. An appropriate development which adds value to the community and which reflects the spirit and regulations of the governing council would be embraced.

    Laurie Mascord

  138. Niclas Hakansson commented

    Re: DA/1774/2013

    I wish to object to the development proposal 1774/2013. Although the developers have redesigned the development, they have ignored the biggest and most concerning issues, those being:
    • the negative social impact this type of development will have on a residential suburb;
    • the traffic and safety problems that will arise;
    • the disregard for negative environmental impact and;
    • the inappropriateness of the size and density of the development.

    Negative Social Impact:
    The fact that this development will not sit harmoniously with the existing suburb will create an ’us’ and ’them’ mentality which is inducive to crime. It will negatively impact upon the community-minded spirit of the neighbourhood. The pleasant, neighbourly atmosphere of this suburb will be destroyed. One development should not be allowed to negatively impact so many people. Whitebridge is a Neighbourhood Centre, according to the LMCC, so why is a development which follows guidelines for a Regional Centre being applied to Whitebridge?
    The local character of Whitebridge, which has existed over many generations, would be tragically changed forever. Whilst this land should and must be developed, current residents must not be subjected to such a mutation of their neighbourhood in order to satisfy the aspirations of a commercial developer. Additionally, future residents of new housing in Whitebridge should enjoy a feeling of belonging to and fusing with the community, rather than feeling detached due to such an obvious discordance in their living arrangements.
    The suggestion that 92 dwellings is appropriate on this piece of land is ludicrous, as is 3-4 storeys in a suburb of free-standing houses. The visual monstrosity will not be the only problem - higher density living is associated with negative social outcomes. It decreases social interaction of residents and detracts from a sense of community. Our suburbs should be nurtured if we are to further increase our quality of living and the desirability of our Local Government Area.
    The design report from the developer states, "The secondary dwellings will allow additional rental affordability." (page C:02) This implies the development is aimed as investment properties. This mismatch of demographics will also contribute toward changing the character of the suburb which is 81% owner occupied. When considering this new housing is all on one block, it is glaringly obvious that there is a mismatch with the current character of the suburb.

    Traffic and Safety Problems:
    Lonus Avenue is already at capacity during peak school times and to add an additional, say, 200 cars to this equation, coming in and out of Kopa St, onto Lonus, would be disastrous. The roundabout also already experiences traffic congestion at these times. The safety of pedestrians is at risk if this development is to go ahead. Families with prams accessing the park, Birralee Daycare Centre, and Whitebridge Preschool on Tumpoa Street, school children walking to and from Whitebridge High and the general public accessing shops and facilities will be placed in a daunting position of navigating overly-busy roads and crossings. This is not the spirit of a ’Neighbourhood Centre’.
    It appears the developers are quite aware of this problem as they have obviously attempted to down-play the traffic situation in their report and have not appropriately addressed the characteristics of the area, that being a high pedestrian/cyclist zone. Additionally, the traffic survey took place on one afternoon only.
    There are no provisions for improved roads and/or traffic conditions in this application.
    Parking is also already a problem in Whitebridge, with cars parked along Dudley Road for people to access the shops and cafes. This impacts upon visibility for pedestrians and motorists. The 20 ’new’ carparks being offered by the developer are not technically ’new’ as the area being assigned to this is currently used to capacity as overflow parking from the formal carpark on Dudley Rd.
    It is inevitable that there will also be parking overflow from the development itself, considering the parking assigned in the DA is realistically not adequate for the number of dwellings.

    Negative Environmental Impact:
    I am very concerned about how arrangements for stormwater will impact upon the Fernleigh Track. The calculations appear flawed and the Track is in danger of being impacted during any periods of heavy rain.
    The 7(2) land should also remain independent from any use by the development.

    Safety and Traffic Problems:
    A single entry/exit point, that being Kopa Street, for 92 dwellings will clearly cause tremendous changes in traffic conditions not only in Kopa Street, but on Lonus Avenue, and the roundabout via which most drivers access Lonus Avenue. The adjacent park, which is used regularly, the tennis courts and the oval will become much less-pleasant places to frequent. This will break down community ties. The traffic along Lonus Avenue will also put families of the Birralee Long Day Care Centre at risk. Students accessing Whitebridge High School by foot along Lonus will be placed in greater danger, and families accessing Whitebridge Preschool in Tumpoa Street will be negatively affected. It is already difficult and sometimes dangerous for buses using Lonus Ave to access the high school.

    Conclusion:
    The way this piece of land is to be developed needs to be considered with much greater regard for both current and future residents of the area. If the development goes ahead in its current form, a disastrous precedent will be set for more of our suburbs to be developed in a similarly mindless and careless fashion.

  139. Sylvie McCarthy commented

    I'm am a resident of Whitebridge and am concerned about the impact that development proposal 1774/2013 will have on our community.
    In it's current form this proposed development is not suitable for our residential suburb, mainly due to it's density and height. Objections that I (and many other residents) have include the development proposal not adequately accounting for traffic and safety problems that will arise as a consequence of an inappropriate number of houses and people, and there being no thorough environmental or social impact reports.
    In it's current form this development should be rejected. A development that is appropriate for the site would benefit future and current residents. We want a well designed and low to medium density development.

  140. Maree Turner commented

    I am disappointed that our community needs to write these submissions once again for a proposal that has not addressed any original concerns. I feel the new proposal for the development on Dudley Road/Kopa Street has not improved in anyway. The proposal still creates the same threats to citizen safety, traffic, green space and utility overload.

    My previous submission focussed on traffic concerns and pedestrian safety. As a mother of two children under the age of four, we are regularly outdoor walking/cycling to the shops, on the Fernleigh track and to other community facilities such as netball courts and parks. With an increase of at least 300 citizens and an anticipated 150 or more vehicles, I feel that my current concern for safety on the roads will only increase.
    We are also a family that uses only one vehicle and we do rely on public transport. I don’t feel that the already basic public transport service could support this sort of community increase. Public transport would need to improve dramatically for people to consider using it to commute to and from work.

    Again I would like to state: I do support development of some kind on the site, and an increase to the existing harmonious community of Whitebridge. It is a beautiful community that I hope to live in for many years, raising my young family safely. While not solving the existing traffic, utility and safety issues, a smaller, less dense development with a reduction in scope would better suit the site and broader community. If the development were to proceed in its proposed form, without significant improvement to existing road, services, utilities, pedestrian infrastructure and environmental support, I fear for the future of our community and the safety of residents and visitors.

  141. Jill Mascord commented

    It is extremely disappointing to see the revised plans for the proposed development of Dudley Road/Kopa Street haave not addressed the real issues raised by the community.

    DENSITY:
    92 dwellings and 4 storeys in Whitebridge? The developer has obviously taken no care to consider marrying this new development into the existing suburb. This is a gross over-development of the site. The majority of Whitebridge is single-storey, detached single-family homes. This development is not in keeping with the character of Whitebridge.

    TRAFFIC CONGESTION:
    I often use the Whitebridge shops as a convenient place to stop and shop. The addition of 92 dwellings will totally detract from the convenience of using Whitebridge shops, thus negatively impacting on business there.

    SAFETY:
    I feel concerned for safety if this development is approved. Safety will be an issue when using the shops and when crossing busy Dudley Road with my grandchildren. Additionally, I am concerned for my grandchildren’s future safety when they attend Whitebridge High as a result of traffic congestions and due to the possibility of an increase in crime and anti-social behaviour which is often associated with developments of this type.

    SOCIAL IMPACT:
    Whitebridge currently enjoys a relaxed, village atmosphere which is apprpriate for an area accommodating a pre-school, long daycare centre, highschool, park, tennis courts and access to the Fenleigh Track. This village atmosphere will be severely compromised if this development is to go ahead in its current form as it is in stark contrast with the character of the suburb.

    ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS:
    ...or lack there of, on the part of the developer. Suggesting the environmental corridor be used to accommodate a thoroughfare between the Fernleigh Track and the shops is not what the community had in mind when they encouraged the developer to allow permeability through the site. It appears the developer would rather spend their time pretending to address issues rather than actually compromising on anything!

    Council has a responsibility to its current and future residents to not be intimidated by the persuasive powers of self-interested developers.

  142. Jason Hepple commented

    I write again in opposition of the development at Kopa Streets and Dudley Road, Whitebridge for similar AND additional reasons.

    The site was originally intended for 40-50 dwellings (even less considering the original calculation included land on the other side of Kopa Street). To suggest 92 dwellings demonstrates a lack of understanding on the part of the developer of Whitebridge being a Neighbourhood Centre, underneath Town Centre and Regional Centre on the LMCC hierarchy.

    Further to this, 4 storeys, or even 3, does not reflect LMCC’s guidelines for development within a Neighbourhood Centre.

    Traffic safety of schoolchildren and other pedestrians will be compromised by this development. It will lead to an intensive and unsafe increase in traffic on roads that are already functioning over-capacity. The area is a thoroughfare for people accessing local beaches and it is also home to a high school, preschool and long daycare centre. It is unsafe and irresponsible to compromise the safety of people by squeezing 92 dwellings into the centre of the suburb where they will be required to use the already busy roads that service schools in the area.

    If this development goes ahead in its current form, there is a very high chance that similar developments will spring up along the land once reserved for the East Charlestown Bypass. This will inevitably and irreversibly change the entire character of these coastal suburbs in a negative manner.

    The proposed development of this site is opportunistic and detrimental to the long-standing community.

  143. Kristen Hepple commented

    I strongly oppose the proposed development at Dudley Road and Kopa Street, Whitebridge.

    The TRAFFIC IMPACT of the development has not been carefully considered. It is already becoming extremely difficult to get a park to use the Whitebridge shops, and the congestion at school times is already a problem.

    The dramatic increase in traffic will affect the SAFETY of the area for motorists and pedestrians alike.

    There are SOCIAL PROBLEMS associated with this type of development such as an increase in CRIME and ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR. This is particularly pertinent when considering high potential for the development being used as rental ropertiess rather than being owner-occupied; it is when a large number of rental properties are placed together that statistics show problems may arise.

    I am also concerned about the ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT of this development. Little regard is being shown for the environmental corridor, which should not be used for thoroughfare. Provisions for stormwater are inadequate. Aestethically, it impedes negatively on the Fernleigh Track. 3-4 STOREYS DOES NOT FIT THE SURROUNDINGS. It will look OUT-OF-PLACE in Whitebridge.

    The DENSITY is ridiculously high and unsuitable for the area. The developer showed great disrespect by increasing the number of units in the re-design, after the community had expressed so much concern over the issue of density already.

    This development will SET A PRECEDENT for other land along the environmental corridor from Adamstown to Belmont to be developed in the same careless manner.

    Council must ensure that this land is developed in a RESPONSIBLE and PROGRESSIVE manner so that the community of Whitebridge and all surrounding suburbs may benefit from, rather than bear the consequences of, the development of this land.

  144. Brett Suprano commented

    I wish to express my opposition to the revised plans for the development on Dudley Road, Whitebridge DA 1774/2013.
    The developer has failed to address the issues that are of huge concern.

    The INCREASE of the amount of units in this new plan further worsens the problem of the density being way too high for the area. The land was intended for 40-50 dwellings, which is still much more dense than the rest of Whitebridge, but which could still blend in with the suburb which should be the intention of any new development.

    The fact that the developer has also INCREASED the number of storeys to 4 along Dudley Road shows further lack of regard for community concerns and council planning guidelines. The intended maximum for a neighbourhood centre is HALF this.

    To think the developer also requests the s94 contribution be waived demonstrates their self-serving intentions. It is a ludicrous request in light of already using public land on Dudley Road and Kopa Street AND the environmental corridor as a pathway from the Track to Dudley Road. Although we live in a society that encourages capitalism, we also strive for quality lifestyles and living standards. This should not be compromised as it serves the greater good.

    The developer assumes to know ’the desired future of Whitebridge’ but it is obvious in reading council’s Lifestyle 2020 and 2030 documents that although urban consolidation is desirable, there was no intention that it be achieved in such a drastic, thoughtless and inappropriate manner. It was once fortunate for Whitebridge that a large parcel of undeveloped land existed, as the possibilities were exciting – now it is extremely unfortunate as it could mean the destruction of the suburb as we know it.

  145. Lisa Suprano commented

    DA 1774/2013 – Development of Dudley Road/Kopa Street

    I strongly oppose the proposed development of Dudley Road and Kopa Street.

    I often walk to the shops or park with my friend and our children from Station Street. I am concerned about the safety of walking around Whitebridge with children in the event of an addition of 91 dwellings and their cars in the centre of the neighbourhood.

    I am also concerned about the traffic congestion that will occur. There will also be a dramatic increase in the number of pedestrians using the walkways and crossings, which will slow down the movement of traffic past the shops. The roads are already barely coping when considering the amount of movement around the suburb related to the shops, park, tennis court, oval, 2 preschools, highschool and general traffic passing through on the way to Dudley and Redhead.

    This development is not in keeping with the current character of Whitebridge. Whitebridge is a neighbourhood with a village-like atmosphere. A 91 unit, 3 to 4 storey development is totally out of character for this area. It will impact negatively on the atmosphere of the neighbourhood.

    The proposed development will look out of place in a neighbourhood where most dwellings are single-storey houses. Although it is inevitable that the area will increase in density over time given the zoning applied, to attempt to grow so drastically, all on one piece of land, in the heart of the neighbourhood, is inappropriate growth and will have devastating consequences for the suburb.

    The developement is also too close to the Fernleigh Track and will ruin the current tranquil experience of using the track. Also of concern is the developer's lack of regard for the Environmental Corridor which should remain undisturbed.

  146. Greater Charlestown Sustainable Neighbourhood Group commented

    The Greater Charlestown Sustainable Neighbourhood Group (Greater Charlestown SNG) has recently been established with the assistance of Lake Macquarie City Council with the vision of creating a vibrant, friendly and healthy neighbourhood.

    As part of the formation of our group, a Sustainable Neighbourhood Action Plan was developed, which represents the goals and visions of the Greater Charlestown Community. There are five key objectives of this Action Plan¸which the development of 142 Dudley Rd Whitebridge NSW 2290 (DA-1774/2013) is at odds with:

    1 - Strong community spirit; the development in its previous and current proposal form has been strongly opposed by the local community due to a multitude of reasons which have not been considered in the adaptation of the initial plans. The Greater Charlestown SNG urges the Joint Regional Planning Panel to consider the concerns of the community which have united in requesting a more sustainable and better designed development for the area. Our community has a strong community spirit that enhances the wellbeing of our community, and we would like this voice to be listened to and consulted.

    2 - Abundant healthy natural environment; the area to be developed currently provides a habitat corridor along Ferneleigh track; linking state conservation areas Glenrock State Conservation Area and Awabakal Nature Reserve as well as feeding into Belmont/Jewells Wetlands, and further afield to the Stockton Bight to Watagans’ corridor, which in turn links to the Watagan and Yengo National Parks. These biodiversity corridors are essential to maintain the ecosystem health of our local conservation areas. We request the development of this land plans and provides space for the continuation of this habitat corridor.

    3 - Well designed and used community infrastructure; the lack of infrastructure initiatives put forward in the proposal will lead to congested traffic conditions, parking restrictions, and a multitude of other hazards for pedestrians and the vast number of cyclists that access Fernleigh Track. We request that these considerations form an essential part of the development, so the development will be beneficial to our community.
    4 - Leading local sustainability initiatives and practices; the plan in its current form offers no initiatives in the way of sustainability best practice. We request that there are changes made to building design and layout to incorporate sustainability best practise knowledge.
    5 - Distinctive village feel; if approved in its current form, the distinctive village feel of both Whitebridge and neighbouring suburbs namely Kahibah and Dudley is at risk. The high rise and high density nature is not in keeping with the prized village feel that our community is proud of. We request that the development improves the central village feel of Whitebridge shops and does not detract from it.

    The proposed development of 142 Dudley Road Whitebridge requires a considerable amount of further community consultation before it can be considered a benefit to the community, or a sustainable initiative. We do not support the development in its current form and request that those reviewing the application take on board the concerns of The Greater Charlestown Sustainable Neighbourhood Group and consult our Sustainable Neighbourhood Action Plan to better understand the local community’s priorities and goals for our local area.

  147. Mrs. Mearns E. Hall commented

    25th September, 2014 Mrs. Mearns E. Hall
    84 Lonus Ave,
    Whitebridge, NSW, 2290

    The General Manager,
    Lake Macquarie City Council,
    PO Box 1906
    Hunter Region Mail Centre
    NSW 2310.

    Re: DA 1774/2013
    Address: 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street, Whitebridge. NSW 2290.
    Applicant's Name: SNL Building Constructions Pty. Ltd.
    Sir/Madam,

    In reference to the above application I would like to voice my deep concerns in regards to the development of this site in its current form. I strongly object to this over development by SNL. As a resident of Whitebridge, I was both stunned and disappointed that the LMCC had re-zoned the Whitebridge area with what seems like very little, if any, consultation with LMCC residents.
    I have much concern over the amended DA 1774/2013 as it seems the developer is injecting another (4) four dwellings (91 to the original 87 dwellings, which initially should have been 40 dwellings) and adding another story onto Dudley Road.

    TRAFFIC IMPACT
    The proposed development that SNL have put forward is so very much out of character with the existing area. There is already existing traffic and parking problems that have become more dangerous by the fencing off of what was a communal parking area and more importantly a recreation area for families and community residents. The traffic congestion will only increase out of Kopa Street trying to access Lonus Avenue and the associated round-a-bout on Dudley Road during peak week days and Saturday mornings on weekends.

    There is still only one entry and exit road into this subdivision (suburb ?)

    No community consultation on traffic problems which local community has knowledge of.

    Lonus Ave and Waran Road will be overloaded with vehicle movements. An entry/exit onto Lonus Ave at peak points will exacerbate the problems and impact on pedestrian safety and congestion.

    The amendment hasn’t changed much of the original plan. It is still overdevelopment for this suburb. There is the possibility for approx. up to 750 car movements in and out of Kopa Street per day.

    SOCIAL IMPACT
    If this is a medium density development I would hate to see their plans for high density. So many people crammed into such a small area are just wrong and unfair to us, the residents of Whitebridge and also to the ‘new residents’ of this ‘estate’.

    Pedestrian safety for mothers with children, school children and the elderly will be severely compromised, as well as access to Birralee Long Day Care Centre, Whitebridge High School, Whitebridge Tennis Court, bus stops and, Whitebridge shops. Access to Whitebridge Shops from the Hudson Street/Station Street end will be significantly extended over a less secure pathway along roadside and travel over a narrow bridge footpath.

    The physical/visual impact of this development will be imposing in relation to the existing low level housing.

    The developers have not used world best practice in the design, noted as “Pyramid Layering”. As the name suggests there would be single story dwellings on the boundary, gradually gaining height toward the centre of the estate, 2 to 3 story’s, which would cause no overshadowing of existing residences and a less bulky look.

    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

    The Ecological corridor (Environmental Conservation Zoned Land) will be modified in use. In SNL‘s Landscape Master Plan only three (3) native species are mentioned. There should be a minimum of thirty (30) native species in this corridor to increase its biodiversity. Non-native and native, not local species have been selected for the individual development areas which is not acceptable. These non-native species could become invasive.

    With the Ecological corridor’s modifications are shown to include a pathway with an adjoining swale and two large retention ponds. Stormwater/surface overflows are expected to flow onto the Fernleigh track. This could result in degradation/pollution of the track and water catchment near Glenrock Lagoon.

    LMCC and SNL have failed to take into account the endangered Sugar Glider population in the surrounding area as well. With breaks in the ‘canopy’, caused by modifications and proposed new plantings,this ‘fauna’ population which is already on a knife edge, will no doubt suffer. Not exactly complying to LMCC’s sustainability/biodiversity claims for the area.

    The size of this development needs to be halved.

    Progress is necessary for any community to advance and grow - but this ‘progress’ should never be at the expense of the existing community.

    Yours Sincerely
    Mrs. Hall

  148. Karyn Huizing commented

    To whom it may concern, please accept this submission regarding the development
    . DA-1774/2013, 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street Whitebridge
    I am writing to voice my extreme objection to various elements of this developments new design.
    MYSELF AND MY FAMILY ARE PARTICULARLY AFFECTED AS WE ADJOIN THE DEVELOPMENT AND OUR PROPERTY IS ON THE CORNER OF KOPA ST. (The only entry and exit)
    Councils are employed for all the people, not just those of wealth and it is my opinion that this community has rallied together with good reason for a common goal: That being a good development that fits into the local community. I also feel that the decision that is made about this development may set a standard for other properties along this corridor of land previously planned for a major bypass.
    While I understand this property will be developed I agree with the concerns of the many submissions already lodged regarding the following issues:
    1)Traffic Issues
    *Kopa St being the only access and added traffic congestion in local area. This area is outrageous now without the burden of extra traffic.
    I draw your attention to the following links 2 of which are taken from my property and 1 a video taken at school time PM.
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=805396379474141&set=o.390027067798916&type=2&theater
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10202767772455981&set=o.390027067798916&type=1&theater
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=633417736695367&set=o.390027067798916&type=1&theater
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=633417163362091&set=o.390027067798916&type=1&theater
    *The waiting times shown in the traffic study shocked me. As is demonstrated in the above links traffic can be backed up past Bula St on Dudley Rd and past Turrug St on Lonus ave.
    * I constantly witness students endangering themselves by trying to cross between traffic. This development will increase traffic and further the danger to school students.
    *Cars are unable to access or leave driveways when this daily traffic jam occurs.
    * Staff from Whitebridge shops now park along Lonus Ave and it is difficult to pass when buses are arriving leaving the school.It is only a matter of time before accidents occur.
    *There have been several near misses with traffic leaving the long day care centre.
    *The parking at Whitebridge shops is already at capacity ALL DAY. Locals are well aware of the dangers of the car park as it exists now with the entry and exit points both very dangerous. This is before any more pressure is added by this high volume development.
    *Kopa St is already used as a parking area for users of the Fernleigh track before adding to the parking on the street. Not everyone will park in underground parking particularly during the day.
    *I am extremely concerned about the impact on my family and home during the construction phase of such a huge development. How long will we be subject to building on the adjacent block and what impact will it have on our lives,road etc.
    *When voicing my concern about the scale and how this will affect me I was basically told if I didn't like it I could always move! This is my home of 20+ years and now I should move? I believe this shows an arrogance of developers and total lack of respect for community should it be allowed to go ahead in it's current form.
    2) Size and design of Development.
    *This development is not in keeping with surrounding areas. There are no developments of this size in the surrounding area and this DA is akin to building a city within a suburb. The 2 and 3 storeys are far too high and still too dense for this area and the plan for the commercial development of 4 storeys does not fit at all with the current surrounds at all. It will affect the whole shopping village.
    *Council zoning of this area would allow for about half the houses to be built and council needs to look at the views of the community.
    *It encroaches on the privacy of adjoining properties greatly and changes the visual landscape of the area dramatically.
    *.This development is widely condemned by the local community and myself due in part to the sheer density.
    *This land is only a part of the corridor that was zoned for the eastern bypass and this parcel of land needs to be managed very carefully as it is a catalyst for future developments along this important land corridor that adjoins the Fernleigh track.
    *There is still minimal greenspace or communal areas in which youth and children can spend time.

    * I would also bring your attention to the tree referral response 10/9/14
    Regarding tree 29 - "One of the trees (29) may be located partially on the adjoining property, where adjoining owners consent may be required prior to council consenting to removal"
    I would choose this tree to remain as it is a preference to looking at a stark brick wall.

    This report also states that there has been no regard to recommendations as outlined within Section 6.5 of the submitted Preliminary Arborist report. I don't understand how this could possibly be acceptable to council.

    It is my hope that this development can be halved in size. This would better enable this community to continue to function as a seaside community where people are happy with their surrounds and houses are built with environment and community in mind.
    I feel strongly that council and JRRP should be guided by the communities objections to this development.
    Regards
    Karyn Huizing

  149. Janelle Graves commented

    My letter in opposition to the Whitebridge development, in its present form:-

    Re: DA 1774/2013
    Address: 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street, Whitebridge. NSW 2290.

    I have been a resident of Dudley for over 25 years. Travelling along Dudley Road through Whitebridge has been the most direct route to Charlestown from my home.

    The revised plan for the new development between Kopa Street and Dudley Road Whitebridge is totally unsuitable for the area. The new plan has not made any improvements on the original planned construction.

    As I have previously written, the new development hoped for Whitebridge was to compliment the existing neighbourhood. It would seem sensible that the new housing division would assimilate new residents to the area with ease, by incorporating living standards that are in keeping with the suburbs relaxed theme.

    This very dense housing complex is in contradiction with its surroundings.

    This very dense housing complex is not the precursor for relaxed suburban cohabiting . The cramped living conditions intended for this new complex are more appropriate for inner city accommodation. Previous submissions have verbalised this concern in more technical terms. Blatantly, this conglomeration is akin to the city housing complexes built, in other countries, and in turn demolished because they have eventually become ghettos.

    The Whitebridge shopping centre has been a busy commercial centre since I first moved to the area. The centre has grown in popularity in the more recent few years with the increase in shops and addition of eating venues. Owing to the popularity of these ventures the traffic is at a maximum during trading hours, most days. The area is "extreme-high-risk" for an accident in its present state. The large influx of traffic planned for the new housing development, added to the existing traffic, equates to traffic mayhem.

    The fact that there is only one entrance and exit to this densely populated housing estate does not sit well when contemplating that it is at real risk of bush fire each season.

    The updated submission has increased the height of the buildings. This is further to the point of cramped living conditions, without even considering the council height regulations.

    A safe, well planned housing development for Whitebridge please.

    Regards
    Janelle Graves

  150. Sarah Purvis commented

    I wish to express my objection towards DA 1774/2013.

    The amended plan pays only lip-service to community and council concerns.
    Traffic congestion remains a huge problem. The now 92 units in the village centre will create a tremendous amount of traffic and is a huge concern, especially when considering the suburb is a gateway to Dudley and Redhead.

    Pedestrian safety as a result of this traffic, is also a huge concern, especially when considering the number of pedestrians attempting to use the pathways and pedestrian crossings when accessing the shops, park, tennis courts, high school, daycare centre and preschool.

    The culture of the suburb will be adversely impacted by having a development in its centre that is in such stark contrast to how the rest of residents in the suburb are living, particularly now that the design incorporates 4 storeys.

    The developer has either paid no attention to the concerns of the community, or (more likely) avoided addressing the concerns of the community because they are in conflict with their own agenda. To then request the compulsory contribution to council be waived demonstrates the lack of goodwill in their intentions. It is possible to profit from developing within a community whilst also improving that community. We only wish SNL took this perspective so that everyone could 'profit'.

    Council must consider not only the residents of Whitebridge, but also the residents of the greater area who will be negatively affected if the development goes ahead in its proposed form.

  151. James "Mark" Smith commented

    3 Salway Cl
    Whitebridge 2290
    26 September 2014

    The General Manager
    Lake Macquarie City Council
    PO Box 1906
    Hunter Region Mail Centre NSW 2310

    Re: Proposed development on Dudley Rd / Kopa St, Whitebridge
    DA number: 1774/2013
    Address: 142-146 Dudley Rd and 2-4 Kopa St Whitebridge NSW 2290
    Applicant: SNL Building Constructions Pty ltd

    I am a 62 year-old retiree and live with my wife in Whitebridge. I object to the scale and nature of the proposed development, the specifics of which are detailed above.
    While I acknowledge that there have been some limited improvements since the proponent made their initial submission, the bigger, more objectionable issues remain unresolved.
    I shop in the Whitebridge shopping centre several times a week and drive through the area several times a day and am convinced that a development such as this will have a substantial detrimental impact on the amenity, safety and social harmony of the suburb.
    In my initial submission I referred to the level of community consultation by the developer. Indeed, there seemed to be no real consultation; it was merely an opportunity for the “developer” to dictate to the community what they were going to do with the site. No input from the local community was welcomed unless, I think, it was to pat the developer on the head and say “gee, what a wonderful plan!” – which, of course, it is not. Indeed, in my view, the nearest thing to consultation at this meeting was the first three letters of the word. Since then, there has been no improvement whatsoever, with the spokes-person on more than one occasion telling a long term neighbour of the site in a dismissive manner “If you don’t like it, move!”. They seem to have confused the word “consult”, with the word “insult”.
    As far as traffic is concerned, the development is already having a strongly detrimental influence. With the loss of parking spaces (prior to the fencing off of the “development” site there was a significant number of parking spaces in the area to the east of the bottle shop), there is increased stacking of traffic at the round-about as vehicles vie for fewer spaces and are unable to gain a free-flowing access to off street parking.
    If the development were to proceed in its present amended proposed form it would generate additional flow onto Lonus Ave and then onto Dudley Rd via the round-about and all of this extra traffic would enter via Kopa St. With the addition of an extra five residential units since the initial D.A., this is going to be even more congested than the unacceptably high level of flow in that proposition. Lonus Ave is already extremely busy, especially at start and finish times for Whitebridge High, with traffic generally backed up well back past the Kopa St corner. This increase in vehicle movements will exacerbate already excessive traffic problems. Apart from longer queues on existing roads, I could imagine residents of the ghetto (sorry – my opinion – see later section dealing with “social impact”) – development, leaving for work of a morning, or going to pick up children later in the day, being backed up down Kopa St and into the private streets on which they would be living and, therefore, being unable to escape.
    All of this boils down to increased traffic flow, more stress on drivers, more risks being taken as drivers try to enter or cross various traffic flows / queues and, inevitably, more risk for other drivers and pedestrians, which would include students walking to and from Whitebridge High as well as parents and toddlers arriving at and leaving the pre-schools and day care centres which are near by to the site of the proposed development. I view it as a tragedy waiting to happen.
    I note that in their proposal the developers included images of low traffic flow in the area adjacent to the development. This was taken in a low traffic flow period and could just as validly, been taken at about 1.00am on a Tuesday. Perhaps they would have liked to come back and take their photos during the morning peak, or at the end of the school day, or on a busy Saturday morning. Perhaps then they might have developed a better understanding of the area they are trying to change. I am sure that they would not seek to mislead Council with an unrepresentative image!
    Tell them they’re dreamin’!
    I believe that there will be a considerable degree of undesirable social impact if this “development” is allowed to proceed in the form of the present proposal.
    Originally eighty seven, now ninety one residential and three commercial units form this proposal. These range up to 5 floors and, in some sections exceed the height limit for the area by 40%. It is also a massive over-development of the site. The density does not fit in with the nature and character of Whitebridge and should be scaled back to something more in harmony with its surroundings. Apart from the multitude of social pressures that are generally recognised as evolving in tight packed densely populated urban areas (often seen as becoming ghettos as social stresses of close packed living manifest themselves), there is a strong impact on surrounding residents and passers-by. It is noted that, in an evident determination to squeeze every last piece of potential construction out of the site, there is a shortage of green and open space in the plans and this will add to the ghetto nature of the development. Although there is some improvement compared to the original DA, it is noted that some of the green areas on the plans are located over underground parking areas and will be unlikely to provide for any significant depth of soil and, therefore, there will be no shrubs or trees of any significant size. Indeed, this is a best case scenario – the plans indicate that much of the area in the Roof Top Terraces will be synthetic turf and planter boxes – synthetic gardens. They may as well just paint the concrete green to contribute to green spaces!
    The residents of Lonus Ave and Kopa St who back onto this site will be particularly hard hit. First, there would be construction noise immediately over there back fence. Given that SNL have stated that this “development” will take place in stages, there is no known end-date for them to have any inkling as to when to noise would stop. Second there would be the on-going noise coming from the new residences. Some of this would be social noises as people interact, be that a happy or aggressive / angry manner. Other noise could be more constant, as the design specifies that air-conditioners would be located on these units. Existing residents could be confronted by a wall of air-conditioner noise bombarding them from just over the fence; endless in summer, and endless in winter.
    Tell them they’re dreamin’!
    It is further noted that plans for planting on the site include many exotic species. Some are deciduous (not favoured by Council and RFS). These include ornamental pear, crepe myrtle and Hong Kong orchid tree. There is also very limited appropriate planting in the environmental zone. In addition, all existing trees are being removed from the site AND trees from outside of the site at the end of Kopa St are also slated for removal. This hardly reflects a well thought out proposal for a location adjacent to a number of sensitive vegetative communities.
    On the matter of the environmental zone, it is unacceptable that the proponent is planning to appropriate this area for their own use. It should not be used for wide pathways and drainage of water from the hard surfaces in the “development”. Further, the inadequate plantings in this area and the previously mentioned removal of trees from the end of Kopa St and on the NE corner of the site seem to suggest that that the proponent is trying to triple dip and use this area as an environmental zone, a drainage sump and as an APZ. This is also evidenced by the placement of the Parkside Villas (lots 21-24) right on the boundary of the buffer zone. These uses are mutually incompatible.
    Adjacent to the development is the heritage Fernleigh Track. Contrary to heritage and planning requirements this development will, in a dominating way, overlook the track and dominate the views from it.
    Tell them they’re dreamin’!
    The excessive density of the proposal is far removed from the need to fit into and be sympathetic to the existing character of the Whitebridge area. There are adequate housing statistics available, but the suburb is very heavily single dwelling housing blocks with some units (mostly single storey). There are a few double storey developments. A perusal of the plans for Kopa St and St E reveal repetitive rows of small, tightly packed terraces. These are more of the character of inner city suburbs, such as Cooks Hill; NOT Whitebridge!
    It should be noted that the proponent in their proposal refers to the Sect. 94 contributions that they will be making; yet they then go on to put the suggestion that they should gift the roads in the development, the park and Whitebridge Square to the Council and then be excused from making the Sect.94 contributions. These are assets that should rightfully be part of the development regardless and, by trying to pass them over to the Council the developer is trying to pass on the maintenance and running costs in perpetuity – avoiding an appropriate cost now and flick passing on-going expenses into the future. Rate payers should not have to tolerate this. It is NOT net public benefit; it is net public cost!
    Don’t tell them they’re dreamin’; tell them they’re joking!
    I have heard proponents of the proposal describe this as a quality development, and I am forced to agree with them. There can be good quality and there can be poor quality and, in my opinion, this amended proposal, although marginally improved in some respects and significantly worse in others, certainly falls well into the latter category.
    All the developer seems to care about is “Yield, yield and yield”. The Whitebridge community will not yield!
    For the reasons set out above, I still object to this type of development being foisted onto my suburb and onto our community.

    Yours sincerely

    Mark Smith
    (J M Smith)

  152. Douglas Kolisnyk commented

    Doug Kolisnyk
    10 Hudson Street
    Whitebridge 2290
    26/09/2014
    Lake Macquarie City Council
    The General Manager
    PO Box 1906
    Hunter Region Mail Centre 2310

    Dear Sir/Ma’am,
    Re: DA number: 1774/2013
    Address: 142-146 Dudley Rd and 2-4 Kopa St, Whitebridge, 2290
    Applicant’s name: SNL Building Constructions Pty Ltd
    I have been a resident of Whitebridge for 25 years, I wish to register my opposition to the proposed development at 142-146 Dudley Rd and 2-4 Kopa St, Whitebridge.
    I have referred to the proposal’s Social Impact Assessment (SIA), the Crime Risk Assessment Report (CRAR), Statement of Environmental Effects (SoEE), Statement of Environmental Planning Policy,. REFERRAL RESPONSE CP – Community Land and the Transport Report by Seca Solutions.
    My concerns are listed below:

    • SOCIAL IMPACT :
    Density
    This high density proposed development of an increase to 91 units, up to 4 storeys high with 1 storey underground, 2-4 bedrooms and 4 commercial properties on a 2.2 hectare block is out of character and proportion with the surrounding neighborhood.
    LMCC response to SNL’s SIA statement:
    “92% of all dwellings in Whitebridge are detached and just 5.8% and 2.2% of dwellings are townhouses and units respectively, there are also a number of social impacts that will arise as a result of a high density development in a predominately low density area. These impacts include:
    o a loss of sense of place,
    o increased pressure on local community and recreation infrastructure, and
    o alienation of the ‘new residents’ from the established community.
    These impacts have not been investigated in the Social Impact Assessment. The most effective mitigation method for addressing these impacts is to ‘scale back’ the development in order to ensure that the change is incremental, which will enable the community to adjust to the changes over time.”

    This density is inconsistent with Council’s statements when the land was rezoned. Council --estimated approximately 50 dwellings may be developed in the 3.1ha hectares of land to be rezoned 2(2) Residential (Urban Living). The high density, design and height of the proposed development are inconsistent with LMCC Lifestyle 2030 Strategy which recognizes that density should be lower at the urban periphery.

    Pedestrian safety
    Pedestrian safety will be severely compromised in the vicinity of the proposed development.At the ends of Lonus Ave is a major regional high school with over 1100 students and staff as well as a long day care centre caring for over 80 children. Tumpoa St, a side street to Lonus Ave, also has a pre –school with over 30 children and 6 staff per day. There is also a church, tennis court and playground regularly visited by adults and children. The only egress to the proposed development is Kopa Street, which is opposite the tennis courts and 100 metres from the day care centre.
    Morning and afternoon traffic along Lonus Ave and Waran Road at school start and finish times, is a constant flow of cars and buses. Lonus Ave is one way in, one way out. There are NO pedestrian crossings on Lonus Ave or Waran Road. A major community concern is the proposed loss of the pedestrian and cycle track accessing the Whitebridge shopping precinct and short cutting from the “white” bridge to the high school. This track has been used by the local people for over one hundred years and will add significant time to their journey if this track is abolished.

    LMCC’s report considers this to be “one of the biggest social issues resulting from” the proposal and that it has not been addressed in the SIA. It notes:
    “ This pathway is not just used by the users of the Fernleigh Track, but also by school children who live in the area to the south and east of the development (the Whitebridge residential area), to travel to school. There is also a well-used informal track providing a direct ‘desire line’ link from the Fernleigh Track to the Whitebridge shops.”

    Design
    The design is driven by the desire to maximise the number of units, rather than by quality design principles. The density/ height (majority of units being 2- 3 storeys, with 4 storeys along Dudley rd), is completely out of sync with the adjoining neighborhood and negatively impacts on the privacy of adjoining residences. Integration/connectivity with existing community is nonexistent, amenity (social, recreational, visual, design) for new and existing residents haven’t been addressed, and invasion of privacy for adjoining properties.

    The Lower Hunter Strategy states the “development of increased densities within renewal areas should deliver quality architecture that respects local character. This will be achieved through well connected and usable public spaces supporting accessible and vital centres.” (p28)
    The proposed development is characterised by repetitive buildings, harshly linear, visually unattractive and is an eyesore on the Whitebridge skyline. The 10 m height envelope over the entire site is compromised repeatedly. The final insult is the additional storey along Dudley Rd which SNL have to make applications for. This Development is totally out of sync with the Whitebridge character. The SOEE repeatedly use the terminology “desired future character”. They are seeking to impose their own desired future on Whitebridge.

    Crime
    The design and density of the proposed development necessitates a range of measures to be implemented in order to avoid an increase in crime in the local area. SNL’S own statements are (2.2.3) ‘their development has the potential to put the residents of Whitebridge at risk through crime and anti-social behaviour by introducing private structures and providing public roads and parking’. Obviously the design of the development should be changed utilising lower densities!
    SNL’s CRA states that Whitebridge is characterised “by low density residential development” (p2). It outlines principles to mitigate the risk of crime: surveillance, access control, territorial reinforcement, activity and space management. (p7) This relates more to a low security prison than a suburban development with the majority of these strategies having an unfavourable impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood.
    Amenity
    LMCC website, SEPP 65 Principles:
    “Good design provides amenity through the physical, spatial and environmental quality of a development.
    Optimising amenity requires appropriate room dimensions and shapes, access to sunlight, natural ventilation, visual and acoustic privacy, storage, indoor and outdoor space, efficient layouts and service areas, outlook and ease of access for all age groups and degrees of mobility.”

    No mention is made of accessibility for the mixed use units provided. It’s noted that none of these units are meeting accessibility requirements from either the entrances or the car park area. It is concerning to note a failure to address the impact this development will have on the current amenity of the shopping area, as shopkeepers are losing trade due to current traffic issues.
    We note that the distance between the commercial buildings and the dwellings of Lot 1 is limited, and are concerned about the acoustic effects on the future residents. There is also poor solar access in the courtyards behind the commercial premises.

    • TRAFFIC IMPACT:
    School based pedestrian traffic / Traffic management
    Little pedestrian access within the complex itself. Units abut the road kerb forcing pedestrians to use the roadway as a pedestrian thorough fare. It is of some concern that the development does not provide more suitable pedestrian access within the complex as children make up a large proportion of pedestrian traffic. Increased pedestrian traffic around the Whitebridge shopping precinct or the associated community facilities such as the park, tennis court, child care centre and the local high school has not been dealt with in the assessment. There have already been two high school students knocked down last year, which wasn’t mentioned in the assessment.

    In SECA’s report,
    - movement summary at Whitebridge Roundabout Base, shows queue distances of 26.3m North: Waran Rd, and 60.9m Northwest: Dudley Rd,
    - movement summary at Whitebridge Roundabout Base +Dev, shows queue distances of 26.3m North: Waran Rd, and 76.5m Northwest: Dudley Rd,
    Both these observations are only over a 3 hr p.m. period. , they do not contain any information regarding new developments further along Lonus Ave plus any projected growth in the surrounding area.

    The development site is currently fully fenced denying Local residents currently have no access to a historical pedestrian thoroughfare which connected the North Eastern side of Whitebridge with its local shops, post box, bus stops, pedestrian crossing and doctor’s surgery, which is also part of the Fernleigh Track cycleway infrastructure and is identified in the Lake Macquarie Cycling Strategy. Residents and track users will now be forced to access the shopping precinct by walking along Kopa Street then Lonus Avenue and Dudley Road, or along Station St and Dudley Road. As well as adding approximately half a kilometre, the second option does not have paved footpaths, fringes a well-used street and requires either (a) crossing a very narrow footbridge and then walking across the vehicular exit in the car park, or (b) using an ill-placed pedestrian crossing which leads onto another intersection which doesn’t have a pedestrian crossing. The elderly, children and young people, dog-walkers, cyclists and parents with prams are exposed to safety issues in this regard.

    New residents will have direct access to the Whitebridge neighbourhood shops. Access to other community facilities: the child care centre, the playground, the tennis courts, Charlestown East Primary School and the local High school are all situated on the north side of Lonus Avenue. All residents will be required to cross Lonus avenue to access these facilities. No pedestrian crossings exist on Lonus Ave and this is a road which is now operating above the desired capacity set by the RMS at peak times for a shared area with vehicular and high pedestrian traffic. The impact of increased congestion, including stacking at the corners of Kopa and Lonus and the Dudley Rd roundabout, on pedestrian visibility and safety and the requirement for more appropriately positioned pedestrian crossings throughout road networks has not been properly assessed. The pedestrian/cyclist and vehicle conflict produces safety issues which are all too apparent to the community and need to be assessed.

    Air Quality
    It is difficult to believe that the developer’s assertion that air quality will be excellent as all future residents will generally use the (infrequent) bus service or the cycleway. There will be a very considerable increase in the use of vehicles in the local area as a result of this DA during construction and afterwards. The particulate fallout from heavy vehicles and prime movers will compound the problem and impose severe health risks in the future.

    Parking/Transport
    SNL’s assessment stated the high demand for off-street parking at “the Dudley (sic) Neighbourhood shopping centre” and the need for high turnover on this off-street parking. For shopkeepers to retain commercial viability this turn-over is also required. It reiterates “There is a low demand for parking on Lonus Avenue and Kopa Street...predominantly used in association with nearby residences and tennis courts.” Omitted here is recognition of the use associated with the preschool and the local playground. Since the report was written [17/7/13] and a fence erected by SNL around the site [8/11/13], parking on Lonus Ave is associated with the use from the overflow of employee and customer parking from the shopping area. Low demand for parking on Lonus Avenue has transformed into high demand parking.
    SNL have acknowledged the higher than average rate of car ownership in this suburb and have made provision for parking assessed as above requirement according to the DCP in the residential section. SNL is relying on the non-timed parking in the shopping area to provide some visitor and delivery/service vehicle parking for the development. Existing businesses /residents will be disadvantaged by 91 dwellings and 4 commercial premises relying on existing parking which currently does not meet needs in peak periods.
    Development occupants, whose car parking space/s prove insufficient given the allowance of 1½ private space on average, will access the visitor parking included within the development. Overflow traffic will be forced from the proposed development into the shopping area. Parking in front of the shops opposite the development, timed to one hour and therefore only suitable for quick turnover is very limited. Refer to the Maynew Group Pty Ltd.’s submissions for more detail on parking issues.
    Suggested action
    I request an independent traffic assessment where transparency, scope, and accuracy will allow for quality data which in turn will be applied realistically to this specific neighbourhood environment. I also request genuine consideration of the negative contributions this development would have on the amenity and liveability of this neighbourhood.
    I am not comforted by SNL’s projections of future solutions when, on so many points, they have failed to acknowledge problematic existing conditions. More importantly, SNL fails to realize that this is an infill development whose density wasn’t envisaged when this site was re-zoned. Wishful thinking will not erase the many attendant traffic issues of this proposal, nor can it over-ride the physical impossibility of squeezing in 91 units, 4 commercial sites and upwards of 200 cars into an area whose road infrastructure has already been deemed to have stretched to the environmental limits of its capacity.

    • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
    Wildlife Corridor management
    “Wildlife Corridor – Proposed Development Exacerbates Bottleneck at Whitebridge” ‘The vegetation adjacent to and within this development represents a corridor that may be critical to the movement, dispersal and interchange of genetic material of threatened species from Glenrock State Conservation Area, the Awabakal Nature Reserve and Jewells Wetland. The specific section of “corridor” at the proposed development site needs to be conserved, enhanced and managed to ensure that it is functional.’ This statement is generated by Dr Carmen McCartney, Ecologist/Science Manager, please refer to her full analysis in her submission.
    Impact on existing infrastructure.

    Almost the total area of the proposed development is planned for “medium density” residential housing, and “Urban Centre” development, excluding those parts formally zoned as Conservation 7(2) under Lake Macquarie Environmental Plan 2004 (Amendment 53). The Conservation Zone along the SE side of the site is 20m wide except closer to Dudley Rd where it is only approximately 9m wide.
    The proposed housing planned in the DA as submitted is essentially of linear multi-storey attached units oriented in a NW/SE direction. The linear design of the development is totally contrary to basic land management practice. In effect there is virtually no “land surface” that remains to be managed. By far the major part of the whole site is under a sealed surface except for the Conservation Zone.

    Mansfield Urban report state the Coastal Plains Smooth Barked -Apple Woodland Plant communities is present in the LMCC Vegetation Community Map for this area. Upon inspection of LMCC V.C.M. the corridor is more closely linked to: 30e - Coastal Plains Stringybark-Apple Forest, 11 – Coastal Sheltered Apple – Peppermint Forest & 12 Hunter Valley Moist Forest. The suitable trees they state are therefore in question.
    Further investigation reveals a number of ‘Non Native’ plant species used throughout the Development , such as Pyrus Capital, Russela equisetoformis, Dwarf Raphaolepis Indica, Trachelospermum, White Crepe Myrtle, Cast Iron Plant, . These plant species are not appropriate as they don’t add to the local biodiversity , do not

  153. Carmen Kolisnyk commented

    26th September, 2014
    Carmen Kolisnyk
    10 Hudson Street,
    Whitebridge, NSW, 2290

    The General Manager,
    Lake Macquarie City Council,
    PO Box 1906
    Hunter Region Mail Centre
    NSW 2310.

    Re: DA 1774/2013
    Address: 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street, Whitebridge. NSW 2290.
    Applicant's Name: SNL Building Constructions Pty. Ltd.
    Sir/Madam,

    In reference to the above application I would like to voice my deep concerns in regards to the amended development of this site. I strongly object to this over development by SNL.

    As a resident of Whitebridge, I was both stunned and disappointed that the LMCC had re-zoned the Whitebridge area with what seems like very little, if any, consultation with LMCC residents.

    TRAFFIC IMPACT
    The proposed development that SNL have put forward is so very much out of character with the existing area. There is already existing traffic and parking problems that have become more dangerous by the fencing off of what was a communal parking area and more importantly a recreation area for families and community residents.

    No community consultation on traffic problems which local community has knowledge of.

    Lonus Ave and Waran Road will be overloaded with vehicle movements. An entry/exit onto Lonus Ave at peak points will exacerbate the problems and impact on pedestrian safety and congestion.

    Dudley Rd, which is in gridlock at various times throughout the day, will be further compromised by the increase in density.

    SOCIAL IMPACT
    If this is a medium density development I would hate to see their plans for high density. So many people crammed into such a small area are just wrong and unfair to us, the residents of Whitebridge and also to the ‘new residents’ of this ‘estate’.

    Pedestrian safety for mothers with children, school children and the elderly will be severely compromised, as well as access to Birralee Long Day Care Centre, Whitebridge High School, Whitebridge Tennis Court, bus stops and, Whitebridge shops.
    Access to Whitebridge Shops from the Hudson Street/Station Street end will be significantly extended over a less secure pathway along roadside and travel over a narrow bridge footpath.
    The increased density (originally 87) to 91 and increased storey along Dudley Rd (with underground parking, throughout estate as well) shows a total disregard and contempt for the residents of Whitebridge.

    The physical/visual impact of this development will be imposing and totally out of character in relation to the existing low level housing.

    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
    There is very little ‘green space’ and no provision for recreational facilities for the residents, especially teenagers and children. This fact alone has been shown to lead to future antisocial behaviour.

    The Ecological corridor (Environmental Conservation Zoned Land) will be used as the developments own private green space. In SNL‘s Landscape Master Plan only ten (10) native species are mentioned. There should be a minimum of thirty (30) native species in this corridor to increase its biodiversity. Non-native and native, not local species have been selected for the individual development areas which is not acceptable. These non-native species could become invasive.

    The modification of the Ecological corridor to facilitate the estate storm water runoff shows complete lack of design process. The Fernleigh Corridor isn’t and was never meant to be an overflow gutter.

    Progress is necessary for any community to advance and grow - but this ‘progress’ should
    never be at the expense of the existing community.

    Yours Sincerely
    Carmen Kolisnyk

  154. Greg Boundy commented

    21 Railway Street
    Dudley, 2290
    26/09/2014

    Lake Macquarie City Council
    The General Manager
    PO Box 1906
    Hunter Region Mail Centre,2310

    Greg Boundy

    I am a resident of Dudley and have many concerns about the development proposed for 142-146 Dudley Road & 2-4 Kopa Street, Whitebridge,2290.DA No. 1774/2013

    TRAFFIC CONGESTION from the development of 91 units in the village centre and increased Building height (4 storyes with 1 underground) along Dudley Rd is a huge concern, especially when considering the suburb is a gateway to Dudley and Redhead. Parking along Dudley Road is already dangerous with gridlock occuring regularly , Whitebridge roundabout suffers as well.

    SAFETY, as a result of this traffic, is also a huge concern, especially when considering the number of pedestrians attempting to use the pathways and pedestrian crossings when accessing the shops, park, tennis courts, high school, daycare centre and preschool.

    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT from use of the Ecological Corridor for landscaping, storm water management and facilities including a pathway with an adjoining swale. This zone will be severely compromised in its use for flora and fauna conservation.

    SOCIAL IMPACT of underage drinking, theft and assults due to overcrowding in estate. Density issues are the problem here. Size of the estate is inconsistent withe the surrounding area and doesn’t maintain the residential amenity.The site should have no more than 40 dwellings as stated in LEP 2004 Draft Amendment 53.

    Of great concern to me also is the PRECEDENT that will be set for this type of development to be planned for other parcels of vacant land along the Fernleigh Track, including land in Redhead. Whilst development is desirable and inevitable, it must be appropriate and sustainable development that contributes to, not detracts from, our neighbourhoods.

    Council must consider not only the residents of Whitebridge, but also the residents of the greater area who will be negatively affected if the development goes ahead in its proposed form.

  155. John Mcdougall commented

    19 Railway Street
    Dudley, 2290
    26/09/2014

    Lake Macquarie City Council
    The General Manager
    PO Box 1906
    Hunter Region Mail Centre,2310

    John Mcdougall

    I am a resident of Dudley and I strongly oppose the proposed development at 142-146 Dudley Road & 2-4 Kopa Street, Whitebridge,2290.
    DA No. 1774/2013.

    I’m concerned that the TRAFFIC IMPACT of the development has not been carefully considered. It is already becoming extremely difficult to get a park to use the Whitebridge shops, and the congestion at school times is already a problem.

    As a parent of 2 children who have attended Whitebridge High, I am extremely concerned about the SAFETY of the area if this development is to be approved in its current form. I would feel extremely uncomfortable about the level of traffic AND the SOCIAL PROBLEMS such as an increase in CRIME and ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR which are usually associated with this type of development, and especially when a high school and development of this type co-exist in a suburb.

    I am also concerned about the ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT of this development. There is no provision for sustainable and efficient energy use and it aestethically impedes negatively on the Fernleigh Track. It DOES NOT FIT WITH ITS SURROUNDINGS. It will look UNSIGHTLY and OUT-OF-PLACE in Whitebridge.

    I am extremely concerned that if this development is approved without significant modifications, it will SET A PRECEDENT for other land along the environmental corridor from Adamstown to Belmont to be developed in the same careless manner.

    Council must ensure that this land is developed in a RESPONSIBLE and PROGRESSIVE manner so that the community of Whitebridge and all surrounding suburbs may benefit from, rather than bear the consequences of, the development of this land.

  156. Keith Kolisnyk commented

    11 Goulburn Street
    Dudley, 2290
    26/09/2014

    Lake Macquarie City Council
    The General Manager
    PO Box 1906
    Hunter Region Mail Centre,2310

    Keith Kolisnyk

    I am a resident of Dudley and am deeply concerned about the proposed development of 142-146 Dudley Road & 2-4 Kopa Street, Whitebridge,2290.
    DA No. 1774/2013

    SAFETY:
    I feel concerned for safety if this development is approved. Safety will be an issue when using the shops and when crossing busy Dudley Road. Additionally, I am concerned for local children’s future safety when they attend Whitebridge High as a result of traffic congestions and due to the possibility of an increase in crime and anti-social behaviour which is often associated with developments of this type.

    TRAFFIC CONGESTION:
    I often use the Whitebridge shops as a convenient place to stop and shop. It has increasingly become harder to find parking since the erection of the fence around the proposed development site. The addition of 91 dwellings will totally detract from the convenience of using Whitebridge shops, thus negatively impacting on business there.

    DENSITY:
    This is a gross over-development of the site. The majority of Whitebridge is single-storey, detached single-family homes. This development is not in keeping with the character of Whitebridge.

    SOCIAL IMPACT:
    Whitebridge currently enjoys a relaxed, village atmosphere which is apprpriate for an area accommodating a pre-school, long daycare centre, highschool, park, tennis courts and access to the Fenleigh Track. This village atmosphere will be severely compromised if this development is to go ahead in its current form as it is in stark contrast with the character of the suburb.

    PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS:
    As a resident of Dudley, I am extremely concerned about the even wider implications this development will have on the land once ear-marked for the ’East Charlestown Bypass’. If this type of development is approved for Whitebridge, we may be faced with the same unsavoury concept in Dudley, as will the residents of suburbs along that entire environmental corridor.

    Council has a responsibility to its current and future residents to ensure appropriate, quality developments in its suburbs.

  157. Margaret Mcdougall commented

    21/120 Redhead St, Redhead
    Redhead, 2290
    26/09/2014

    Lake Macquarie City Council
    The General Manager
    PO Box 1906
    Hunter Region Mail Centre,2310

    Margaret Mcdougall:

    I am a resident of Dudley and I strongly oppose the proposed development at 142-146 Dudley Road & 2-4 Kopa Street, Whitebridge,2290.
    DA No. 1774/2013.

    Safety of the Fernleigh Track will be compromised:

    As a user of the Fernleigh Track, I am concerned about the impacts this development will have on its use. Safety will be compromised by residents of the development using the track as their own private outdoor space, due to the appalling lack of green space within the development itself. The track is a cycle/walk way and it is not intended for static activity.

    Traffic safety of schoolchildren and other pedestrians:

    This development will lead to an intensive and unsafe increase in traffic on roads that are already functioning over-capacity. The area is a thoroughfare for people accessing local beaches and it is also home to a high school, preschool and long daycare centre. It is unsafe and irresponsible to compromise the safety of people by squeezing 91 dwellings into the centre of the suburb where they will be required to use the already busy roads that service schools in the area.

    Inappropriate size and design for the area:

    This is a gross over-development of the site with total disregard for the current streetscape and street character of the area. No attempt has been made to integrate the development with the current surroundings.

    Setting a precedent for other inappropriate developments:

    If this development goes ahead in its current form, there is a very high chance that similar developments will spring up along the land once reserved for the East Charlestown Bypass. This will inevitably and irreversibly change the entire character of these coastal suburbs in a negative manner.

    The development of this land must be more carefully and responsibly considered and should contribute positively to the suburb.

  158. Tracey Tutton commented

    I wish to object to DA 1774/2013 on Dudley Rd, Whitebridge.

    The density is too high. 91 dwellings is entirely out of character for the area, and indeed for ANY Neighbourhood Centre.The land was deemed suitable for 30-40 dwellings by LMCC when it was rezoned. This number is much more realistic and acceptable, and I believe there would not be community opposition against this number. To suggest more is pure opportunistic over-development.

    Considering the land along Lonus Avenue is not yet fully developed to its inevitable potential under the new zoning, the impact of this potential absolutely must be considered alongside this new development in regard to strains on the local infrastructure.

    The addition of probably 1000 car movements a day could be reasonably assessed as presenting the community with further congestion and safety issues.

    This development will substantially increase the danger for pedestrians in the Whitebridge area. I regularly walk, with my 1 year old daughter, to the shops and park. This possibility of accessing shops amenities without the need to drive was a strong drawcard for us in choosing to live in this area.

    I am also concerned about the noise pollution which will occur as a result of this increase in traffic AND of the dramatic increase in the number of people who will suddenly be living opposite us, in extremely close proximity. The level of noise as a result of the amount of cars, airconditioners, tvs, music, voices etc that will eminate from a development of that type will definitely have an adverse impact on the residents of Whitebridge.

    This development is in stark contrast to the family-friendly atmosphere of Whitebridge, which is another reason we chose this area in which to live. This type of development, which involves so many people living in such a confined area, promotes an unfamiliar and suspicious vibe, where residents can not easily know and become acquainted with other members of their community. It has a strong possibility of becoming an ”us” and ”them” mentality, whereby you live in ”the development” or you live in the ”normal” parts of the suburb. This will not support a cohesive community atmosphere and could breed tension and resentment.

    This development will look extremely out-of-place as Whitebridge is predominately single storey detached houses. To allow a development incorporating 4 storeys is irresponsible and inconsiderate to those who have already chosen to make Whitebridge their home. Change and progress is inevitable and necessary, but must be achieved in an appropriate manner.

    A development must be a positive addition to a suburb, NOT a detriment.


  159. Nathan Tutton commented

    I write to object to the new plans for the proposed development at Dudley Rd and Kopa St, Whitebridge. The new plans do not address the important issues and in fact exacerbate them.

    The developer has increased the number of units from 87 to 91 and added another storey to make a height of 4 storeys, 14 metres. It is extremely disappointing and unfortunate that they have not taken on board the most concerning issues highlighted to them by the community and council.

    Traffic congestion will be a significant problem, especially along Lonus Avenue and at the roundabout, and especially during school drop-off and pick-up times, where there are already long delays.

    It seems very unreasonable that the only proposed entry and exit points for a development of that size is via Kopa Street, which links to Lonus Avenue, and Lonus Avenue is the street used for Whitebridge High School, Whitebridge Preschool in Tumpoa Street AND Birralee Long Day Care Centre. All of these also link to the roundabout.

    I feel very concerned about even walking with my one-year old daughter to the park if this development was to go ahead, and, in the future, walking to the preschool with the need to cross and walk along these roads if that level of traffic will be present. This seems very out-of-character to have this level of traffic attempting to move around a suburb.

    Additionally, it is already becoming very difficult at times, and dangerous, to turn from Station Street, where I live, on to Dudley Road due to the traffic passing though on its way to Redhead and Dudley. This will only worsen if the development attempting to accommodate such a high number of people was to go ahead.

    Dropping into the shops on your way home from work will become a thing of the past, as parking problems will inevitably arise as current parking places, of which there are already too few, will be taken over for the development. This will also place more pressure, traffic and congestion onto Dudley Road as people attempt to find parks there instead.

    The Fernleigh Track will also be affected, as it will lose a lot of its beauty and tranquility at this Whitebridge stop and will discourage cyclists, walkers and joggers from making Whitebridge shops and cafes their destination. This will adversley affect businesses in the area. The buildings need to be set way further back so as to not impose upon the experience of the Track.

    Finally, this development will look very unattractive and will not match its surroundings. It has the potential to become the embarrassment of Whitebridge, which will become known for its out-of-place development rather than for its pleasant, community vibe.

    I urge the deciding bodies to use common sense and forward thinking to ensure that the developer is made to consider the greater good and not purely profit from this amazing opportunity to develop the suburb of Whitebridge. Current and future residents deserve to be protected and considered to ensure a precedent is set that encourages quality and positive development of our area.

  160. James Pheils commented

    I object to the revised plans for the development on Dudley Rd.

    The same issues I have raised previously are still pertinent, if not exacerbated, by the new plans.

    The density is too high, the traffic implications very concerning and the 14metre height along Dudley Rd entirely inappropriate. Safety of residents, students and shoppers must be an important consideration. As should the precedent that would be set by allowing this type of development to occur. Urban consolidation is inevitable and necessary but this is not urban consolidation - this is ill-thought out, poor planning which has potentially devastating consequences for the community.

    I urge the deciding body to enforce LMCC planning guidelines to ensure our suburbs are developed with integrity for the good of all.

  161. Kylie Pheils commented

    I wish to object to the development on Dudley Rd Whitebridge, DA 1774/2013.

    It is disappointing to see the developer has not taken on community concerns when redesigning the proposed development.

    The addition of another storey, bringing the height along Dudley Rd to 16 metres, 4-storeys, is entirely in opposition to the village atmosphere ofWhitebridge. It will lessen the experience of shopping and frequenting the cafés on the shopping strip.

    Increasing the number of units from 87 to 91 indicates that the developer is not interested in taking on board community and council concerns. This number is entirely too high and indicates an opportunistic attitude on behalf of the developer. LMCCindicated the land was appropriate for 40-50 dwellings (even less considering that took into account land on the other side of Kopa Street) and the community agrees with this figureas being appropriate.

    To then request waivure of the compulsory developers contribution appears somewhat disrespectful on the part of the developer, especially considering their requests use public land for 'Whitebridge Square'and private driveway on Kopa St, as well as the environmental corridor to achieve permeability of the site, which is not generous, but rather required by Safety by Design principles.

    This development must be suitable for the area and enhance the suburb. Currently, Whitebridge is at risk of becoming a suburb of social unrest and discontent.

  162. Gwenda Smith commented

    I wish to maintain my objection to the amended DA 1774/2013 on land at Dudley Rd and Kopa St, Whitebridge. I do not oppose development on this site, but do oppose the intense overdevelopment proposed by SNL. The increase in number of dwellings from 87 to 91 and the increase in height of the buildings is totally unacceptable and incompatible with the local area and the suburb generally.
    When the land was rezoned the planning documents proposed a reasonable density for the East Charlestown bypass corridor. Local residents would have been happy to accept a proposal with about 40 dwellings on the site to a maximum of two storeys. The DA now lodged does not comply with LMCC height limits and a building of 4 storeys fronting Dudley Rd would be totally overwhelming and a visual eyesore both close up and from a distance. The site is on relatively high land and is visible from many places around the area. It is especially visible to all people in the local shopping centre and those travelling along Dudley Rd. The proposal should comply with al LMCC guidelines which have been written the protect the scenic values of our environment.
    The new plan for the site still includes many multistorey buildings which take up nearly all of the site. The roads are very narrow, there is underground parking to increase the number of units, and there is very little private space for any future residents. The conditions would be crowded with people living in close proximity to many neighbours. This type of crowded living conditions can lead to social disharmony and dissatisfaction. If there were children and pets in the buildings, it would only be worse in this regard.
    Many of the buildings are still long and repetitive in design. The built area is a high proportion of the site, so there is little permeability for water. Stormwater management will be a major problem and the proposal to use the Conservation Zone for ditches and basins to manage runoff from the roads is totally unacceptable. This green corridor should be used to enhance and protect the flora and fauna suitable for the zone, and not for any other purposes to suit the developer whose main aim seems to be maximum yields and profits.
    The suggestion of removing all the trees on the site and in the reserve at the end of Kopa St is appalling and unacceptable from an environmental and visual point of view. The developer needs to comply with the guidelines of Council in regard to tree preservation. In addition, any new trees and plants proposed need to be more suitable than the various exotic species suggested in the Landscape plan.
    The wide pathway through the Conservation Zone should be moved out of this area and could be more appropriately built within the built zone. This would still give people access through the site and could assist in terms of comprising part of the asset protection zone to separate the natural bushland which does exist and the dwellings to be constructed.
    The bulk and scale of the proposed buildings is intense for this site, and it would be surprising if the proposal was acceptable to the Mines Subsidence Board. This is especially true given that the first DA was not acceptable.
    In conclusion, if a proposal reducing the number of apartments and townhouses, and lowering the height of the buildings, was forthcoming, there could be a well designed and acceptable development on this site. It could still provide additional housing near to the neighbourhood centre, the schools and the sporting facilities in the local area. It could respect the local natural environment as well as the heritage Fernleigh Track immediately adjacent. It could be built entirely on the land owned by the developer, and not on any adjacent public land or on the Conservation Zone. It would reduce the impact of the increase in traffic on the local streets and give more importance to the safety and lifestyle of the community. It would have less of an impact on the immediate neighbours both during the construction phase and afterwards.
    Parking in the shopping centre is already a difficult issue for both the customers and the shopkeepers and business people. An overdevelopment of the site would make this problem much worse, affecting the safely of motorists and pedestrians.
    I hope that the owners of the land and the developer will now listen to the concerns of the community and realise that changes need to be made to their plans and in their attitudes to those of us who live in Whitebridge and enjoy the low density character of the suburb. A good development is possible for the site and that is what is needed and desired.

  163. Katherine Cox commented

    I wish to object to the development on Dudley Rd Whitebridge, DA 1774/2013.

    It is disappointing to see the developer has not taken on community concerns when redesigning the proposed development.

    The addition of another storey, bringing the height along Dudley Rd to 16 metres, 4-storeys, is entirely in opposition to the village atmosphere of Whitebridge. It will lessen the experience of shopping and frequenting the cafés on the shopping strip.

    Increasing the number of units from 87 to 91 indicates that the developer is not interested in taking on board community and council concerns. This number is entirely too high and indicates an opportunistic attitude on behalf of the developer. LMCC indicated the land was appropriate for 40-50 dwellings (even less considering that took into account land on the other side of Kopa Street) and the community agrees with this figure as being appropriate.

    To then request waiver of the compulsory developers contribution appears somewhat disrespectful on the part of the developer, especially considering their requests use public land for 'Whitebridge Square' and private driveway on Kopa St, as well as the environmental corridor to achieve permeability of the site, which is not generous, but rather required by Safety by Design principles.

    I am also extremely concerned about the increase in traffic, especially the intersection of Kopa Street and Lonus Avenue. The western side of Kopa Street is currently a fairly quiet area and often has children and families congregating for cricket and tennis. I do not see that this would be a suitable thoroughfare for the additional vehicles (of the 91 residences) onto Warren Road.

    This development must be suitable for the area and enhance the suburb.

  164. Amanda Brown commented

    I write again to express concerns regarding the amended development plans for DA 1774/2013.

    My prior issues with the proposal remain and have been exacerbated by the redesign of the plans, particularly the issue many residents have raised regarding the resulting density and associated outcomes such as traffic congestion, safety, social impact and the damage to our local environment.

    I maintain as have many other residents that the proposed development is not in keeping the the existing community. In particular, the revised plan now includes a 5 storey building which is highly inappropriate considering Whitebridge is a suburban area. In addition, I believe that this is does not comply with council regulations.

    Prior to moving to Whitebridge with my husband, I lived in terrace housing (similar to that proposed by SNL for this site) in Cooks Hill. Many of the concerns raised by residents in terms of parking, narrow streets, and high density living including crime, were issues I experienced on a daily basis. Like many others, we moved from the city to avoid this type of housing and the associated issues. Whitebridge is a suburb which does not require rows of terraces on the scale proposed in this development application. As previously stated, it is not in keeping with the existing suburb but rather creates a new one, a "ghetto" comes to mind.

    It is insulting to consider that despite objections to the number of dwellings proposed, not only by the community but by our elected councillors, the developer has now is creased this number in the new design, and has not adequately addressed such concerns. In some cases, the developer has not even bothered to try.

  165. Renae Conroy commented

    I strongly object to the development onDudley Rd Whitebridge DA 1774/2013.

    The new design has not resolved the issues that are of most concern.

    Traffic and safety remain paramount in the minds of residents, students and their families.

    Discordance with of the style of this development with its current surroundings will divide a community which currently enjoys a harmonious existence.

    4-storeys along Dudley Rd will provide an eyesore for motorists passing g through on their way to Redhead and Dudley beaches, as well as detract from the lovely atmosphere of the shopping district.

    The environmentL corridor is I risk of being used as a public pathway, which is not what the community intended to happen when they asked for permeability through the site.

    Users of the Fernleigh Track may be disappointed with their experience once reaching this middle-point due to the buildings being so close to the track.

    Storm water provisions appear inadequate and could also impact the Fernleigh Track.

    There exists more land inWhitebridge which will be used in a higher-density fashion in the future, given the new zoning. This should be taken into account.

    This is a great opportunity to shadow how urban consolidation can be achieved in the right way. Make a good example ofWhitebridge. Don't allow Whitebridge to become an example of a lesson to be learnt.

  166. Becky Beveridge commented

    To Whom It May Concern,

    I am a resident of Hudson Street, Whitebridge and write to state my objection to this proposed development. I reiterate my concerns in relation to the previous DA (stated in my previous objection) as I feel they have not been addressed.

    I have major concerns in regard to this development. Let me preface this by saying I am not opposed to developments and when done correctly, and in accordance with the local area, they can benefit the whole community. I believe this development will be a detriment to Whitebridge and its residents. My major concerns are;

    1. The high density. I understand this area is zoned 'medium density', however the number and density of residences is well above what a reasonable person would consider appropriate for this area, or any area outside a city or a larger town. 91 lots is an extreme number for a small suburban area and I am well aware that this number could be dramatically reduced and still adhere to the medium density zoning. The height and closeness of the 'townhouses' is befitting of a town MUCH larger than Whitebridge. The fact that this DA has been redesigned to increase the density speaks volumes to the lack of consideration given to locals' concerns.

    Whitebridge is known for its bush surrounds, an environmentally friendly area that hosts a number of beautiful and well regarded areas that Lake Macquarie Council should be proud of and seek to preserve the integrity of, such as the Fernleigh track, Glenrock reserve, Dudley beach, etc. Residents from all over Lake Macquarie and Newcastle visit this area as it is a naturally beautiful, highly regarded environment that caters for such a wide range of the population. This development will detract from these community assets.

    2. Social Impact. The concentration of so many dwellings into such a small space brings with it a range of social problems. There is inadequate space for residents to spend their time within their own dwellings and Whitebridge does not have the infrastructure or activity that a larger town or city has to cater for this number of people. There will inevitably be an increase in 'bored youths' within the neighbourhood.

    3. Traffic and pedestrian dangers. Kopa Street and Dudley Road are already extremely congested and dangerous. Pedestrian safety has been a major issue in an increasingly busy area. Kopa Street, which will be the only entrance and exit point for this development already houses a highschool, daycare centre, preschool, tennis courts, sports oval and children's park. This development will add more than 200 cars in this single street alone. This is a street that currently has periods where traffic is at a standstill trying to accommodate these amenities. Another 200 - 300 cars will make this area a nightmare to live and a very dangerous street to be a pedestrian in. Will council be spending the money to upgrade the roads, add new lanes of traffic, a set of traffic lights at the roundabout, adequate public transport and more (much needed) parking at the shops? Major works will need to be done to this area if a development of this size is to be approved.

    4. Amenities. Whitebridge is a beautiful suburb to live and a wonderful suburb to visit, however Whitebridge has limited amenities which will not cope with an influx caused by a development of this size. The local daycare centre, as an example, has a three year waiting period for any positions (I know as we have been on it for 2 years). The local shops rarely have free parking in busy times, the bus stop is dangerous, and the parking at the shops fails to accommodate even the current residents. There is no way this area will cope with a development of this size unless council are prepared to invest a large amount of resources into infrastructure and amenities. Will council be upgrading these local areas?

    After emailing concerns to the developer, I received a written reply which said 'all these concerns are council responsibility and are not our problem'.

    This comment alone (not to mention the lack of consideration these objections were given in the DA redesign) speaks volumes about this development, how it is being planned with no regard for the local area and I hope that council makes a stand on behalf of its residents and its local environment and insists that the density is reduced and the road and safety issues are addressed to actually benefit and promote our beautiful and much loved area.

  167. Luke Searles commented

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    Below is the exact objection I made to the proposed development back in January. I was going rewrite this objection to make it relevant to the 're-design' SNL has re-submitted, but then I realised I still have the exact same objections since 're-design' has addressed none of the issues previously raised. In fact it has made them worse.

    To SNL, I understand as developers you need to make money off a property, but don't make the community suffer because you over paid for the site.

    Previous objection;

    I am writing concerning DA 1772-2013 proposed for Lonus Ave, Whitebridge and to express my concern and objection to this development. I live in Charlestown, however am regularly in Whitebridge for work and to visit family.

    I do not object to the development of this land, however this development is excessive and will be a detriment to Whitebridge and the surrounding areas.

    1. There are too many units planned for this space. This number of units in a small suburb will create a myriad of problems including higher crime rates, traffic congestion, pressure on amenities, pedestrian safety issues, to list just a few. It will look synonymous to a ghetto. Whitebridge is a small, quiet suburb which boasts a friendly community atmosphere and a thriving environmental landscape, both would be jeopardised by this development.
    The appropriate density zoning could still be achieved with far fewer units.

    2. This development will create traffic and parking problems resulting from 88 two-three bedroom units and several commercial properties. Whitebridge does not have the road systems, parking or infrastructure to cope with this many new cars to Dudley Road, Lonus Avenue, local shops and nearby streets.

    3. The development is poorly designed which is evidenced in the boxy, ‘dorm room’ style dwellings, the obvious inference is that this development has been planned to maximise profits through high density and low quality.

    I am hopeful that Lake Macquarie Council and the JRPP make a stand against this development and demand one that suits the local area and is not detrimental to it.

    Thank you,
    Luke Searles

  168. D. Naszka Ballardie commented

    Dear General Manager,
    I wish to express my objection of the updated proposal at Whitebridge, DA1774/2013.
    142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290
    I am a resident of the area, my 15 month old child has been on a wait-list at every Childcare centre between Adamstown Heights and Gateshead since I was pregnant and we are still waiting for childcare. With over a 2 year wait list on average the size of this development will severely impact the already limited resources which are available to the community. I am also concerned that the social impacts of this development have been overlooked and as a result the local and ‘new estate’ communities will be left to clean up the mess once the developer is out and Department of Housing/ affordable living moves in.
    This development should be stopped because:
    1. Developer is guilty of donating to a political party in the area that this development is in- this should be a criminal case and not just something that gets swept under the carpet. This developer nor any affiliate should be able to build in the area for the term of the government.
    2. The type of buildings the developer wants are out of character with the surrounding houses and will detract from the area. The unnecessary removal of trees and vegetation and the use of public lands for the development should not per permitted. No other resident in the area could do this so why can this developer?
    3. The visual impact of 3-4 storeys above ground will be imposing and change the character of the suburb. The developer doesn’t use best practice in design of the new dwellings and puts profit before people.
    4. This type of over-development will degrade the community and the current way of life for locals with increase of traffic congestion, people, and the fight for limited resources such as parklands, car parking at our local shops, childcare and school places, queues at the local GP. No provisions have been made to ease such stresses.
    5. Traffic is already congested at Whitebridge roundabout this development will make it worse, not to mention the parking for the increased number of new residence and their visitors.
    6. Increase in traffic congestion put locals at risk –as it is children dodge the traffic to get to school, especially around the round-a about. Overcrowding leads to social problems and antisocial behaviour, increase crime, graffiti etc.
    7. Safety concern for possibility of anti-social behaviour- as seen in “Affordable living” areas eg the Ghetto at Glebe Road Adamstown and Darby Street, Cooks Hills, Windale and Belmont Areas, research shows that “affordable living’ developments create an ‘Us and them” mentality, and lead to increased antisocial behaviour. Developments like this is not best practice in providing for ‘affordable living” leading to negative social impacts.
    8. The developer arrogantly avoided addressing the concerns of the community which were raised in the initial application and now has further pushed the interpretation of the zoning intention.
    9. There has been no community consultation regarding the local traffic congestion and the development will exacerbate the issues.
    10.Council has not conducted a negative social impacts assessment for this development and as a result would not have a clear indication of the social impacts of this over development how it affects peoples way of life, how they work, play and interact with each other, social equality and personal property rights and fears for safety. Please consider how this development will impact this community.

    Sincerely,

  169. Judith Gray commented

    I have previously submitted my comments about this development and wish to state that not only have those concerns not been addressed (see below), but that the new plans have not only not addressed these issues they have created new ones such as decreasing the environmental zoned lands by building on them.

    As a resident of Whitebridge I am writing to object to DA 1772-2013 in Whitebridge. I do not object to the development of this vacant land, however I have strong objections to this current proposal.
    I understand this land has been zoned ‘medium density’ and as such a certain number of dwellings are required to be built. The current proposal of 87 units plus commercial properties is an excessive number for such a small community. The zoning requirements could still be met with far fewer properties.
    Development needs to be “integrated with, rather than separating from existing surrounding development” (Section 5.3.3. Lake Macquarie City Council Lifestyle 2020 strategy). This development proposes wall to wall structures 2 – 3 storeys high, which would completely ‘separate’ the existing surrounding development as this type of structure is non-existent in the local area.
    The local amenities are already strained coping with the current population. Roads are extremely busy and dangerous, the Fernleigh track is often crowded and parking is insufficient. A development of this many units would exasperate these already existing problems.
    The social impact of such high density living in a small area would be disastrous. Residents would have little or no personal space, a lack of amenities and public transport to cope with their needs, extreme heat due to lack of greenery and poor building design, and extremely busy roads.

    These buildings need to be planned to integrate with the existing community, provide personal and communal green space, space in between dwellings for trees and privacy and ideally contribute to the local community, e.g. building of a park, new pathways, extra parking, upgrading of roads, etc.
    I sincerely hope the local community is consulted about this development in the future

  170. Bridgette Davis commented

    This latest proposal needs some serious thought and planning before it can be approved. The reasons why it shouldn't be approved are as follows:

    1) Road and pedestrian safety.

    The application is for 91 units and there even if there are only 2 cars per unit this amounts a minimum increase of 273 cars coming out a cul du sac or straight on Dudley road where there is high pedestrian and car traffic.

    During school hours and work peak hours there is queue of traffic all the way down Kopa St and backed up from the Whitebridge round both ways on Dudley Road.

    On Dudley Rd where the shops are located there is a footpath only on 1 side of the road, the other side barely has enough room to walk single file without going onto a busy road. Very difficult if you are walking a dog, pushing a pram or doing both.

    2) Parking for Shops
    Currently there is not adequate parking to meet the demand during peak times without the development.

    3. The Density
    Whitebridge is a community of mainly houses on 500m+ sections. There are blocks of units but not to the extent of this application. From what I understand this block of land has been zoned for approximately 40 units. The number of units needs to be brought in-line with what the land is zoned for.

    4. Lack of footpaths in the Whitebridge area and the close proximity to the shops, childcare centre, tennis courts and school.

    5. Land that has been marked as environmental would be used for roads and driveways.

    6. Fire safety - I cannot imagine the chaos if this application was to be approved and a fire occurred. How would everyone get out of the area safely? People start fires not trees.

    7. These units should be designed to take advantage of the sun and sea breezes instead of relying on air conditioners, heating and dryers - no outdoor area to hang clothes.

    The infrastructure is not there to support this kind of development - roads, parks, footpaths as well as the additional impact on childcare services and/or schools. I have a 22 month old who has been on the waiting list at the childcare centre at Whitebridge before he was born and he is still on the waiting list as well as other childcare centres in the surrounding areas. How would a development like this impact that issue?

  171. Mark Bentley commented

    As i have previously commented on this debacle of a development, it appears the developer has nothing but contempt for the people of Whitebridge and surrounding suburbs.
    They have done nothing to address any of the issues in this latest proposal, and those they have been asked to address by council have further impacted negatively, in fact it is worse than before. One can only hope that the powers to be will put a stop to this awful development and look after the majority instead of lining the pockets of greedy developers.

  172. Karyn Huizing commented

    To whom it may concern, please accept this further submission regarding the development
    . DA-1774/2013, 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street Whitebridge
    I am writing to voice my extreme objection to various elements of this developments new design.
    MYSELF AND MY FAMILY ARE PARTICULARLY AFFECTED AS WE ADJOIN THE DEVELOPMENT AND OUR PROPERTY IS ON THE CORNER OF KOPA ST. (The only entry and exit)
    Councils are employed for all the people, not just those of wealth and it is my opinion that this community has rallied together with good reason for a common goal: That being a good development that fits into the local community. I also feel that the decision that is made about this development will set a standard for other properties along this corridor of land previously planned for a major bypass. This is also a major concern.
    While I understand this property will be developed I agree with the concerns of the many submissions already lodged regarding the following issues:
    1)Traffic Issues
    *Kopa St being the only access and added traffic congestion in local area. This area is outrageous now without the burden of extra traffic.
    I draw your attention to the following links 2 of which are taken from my property and 1 a video taken at school time PM. Please take the time to view proof of traffic issues that already exist.
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=805396379474141&set=o.390027067798916&type=2&theater
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10202767772455981&set=o.390027067798916&type=1&theater
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=633417736695367&set=o.390027067798916&type=1&theater
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=633417163362091&set=o.390027067798916&type=1&theater
    *The waiting times shown in the traffic study shocked me. As is demonstrated in the above links traffic can be backed up past Bula St on Dudley Rd and past Turrug St on Lonus ave. The reality is clearly shown in these links.
    * I constantly witness students endangering themselves by trying to cross between traffic. This development will increase traffic and further the danger to school students.
    *Cars are unable to access or leave driveways when this daily traffic jam occurs.
    * Staff from Whitebridge shops now park along Lonus Ave and it is difficult to pass when buses are arriving leaving the school.It is only a matter of time before accidents occur.
    *There have been several near misses with traffic leaving the long day care centre.
    *The parking at Whitebridge shops is already at capacity ALL DAY. Locals are well aware of the dangers of the car park as it exists now with the entry and exit points both very dangerous. This is before any more pressure is added by this high volume development. Also only having 1 exit where customers leave the carpark is ludicrous and only adds to daily chaos and danger of this carpark.
    *Kopa St is already used as a parking area for users of the Fernleigh track before adding to the parking on the street. Not everyone will park in underground parking particularly during the day.
    *I am extremely concerned about the impact on my family and home during the construction phase of such a huge development. How long will we be subject to building on the adjacent block and what impact will it have on our lives,road etc.
    *When voicing my concern about the scale and how this will affect me I was basically told if I didn't like it I could always move! This is my home of 20+ years and now I should move? I believe this shows an arrogance of developers and total lack of respect for community should it be allowed to go ahead in it's current form.
    2) Size and design of Development.
    *This development is not in keeping with surrounding areas. There are no developments of this size in the surrounding area and this DA is akin to building a city within a suburb. The 2 and 3 storeys are far too high and still too dense for this area and the plan for the commercial development of 4 storeys does not fit at all with the current surrounds at all, the newest plans have,unbelievably, increased the density. It will affect the whole shopping village. Developers do not live here and suffer the effects. Once their money is made they move on and we the community will be left in their wake should it be allowed.
    *Council zoning of this area would allow for about half the houses to be built and council needs to look at the views of the community.
    *It encroaches on the privacy of adjoining properties greatly and changes the visual landscape of the area dramatically.
    *.This development is widely condemned by the local community and myself due in part to the sheer density.
    *This land is only a part of the corridor that was zoned for the eastern bypass and this parcel of land needs to be managed very carefully as it is a catalyst for future developments along this important land corridor that adjoins the Fernleigh track.
    *There is still minimal greenspace or communal areas in which youth and children can spend time and the playground is I believe not even available to the public!!

    It is my hope that this development can be dramatically reduced. It is inconceivable to me that this development could possibly be allowed by council with it's density and building height in this area! A large reduction would better enable this community to continue to function as a seaside community where people are happy with their surrounds and houses are built with environment and community in mind.
    I feel strongly that council and JRRP should be guided by the communities objections to this development.
    Regards
    Karyn Huizing

  173. Elon Alva commented

    In reference to DA/1774/2013

    The amended plans still do not address the issue of traffic congestion, no added infrastructure for the area, insufficient parking spaces in the area, safety concerns, lack of community support for this application, Even the studies (probably paid for by the developer and not truly independent) show the negative impact for the area.

    Please DO NOT grant this application.

    Thanks,
    Elon Alva

  174. Kelly Davis commented

    To the General Manager, in regards to the Whitebridge development.

    I am a Whitebridge resident and strongly disagree with the current DA .
    If someone did a survey of local opinion I am quite sure over 90% of people would oppose this development .

    It is basically SNL being greedy. Dont forget that a certain Mining magnate accused of giving a bribe to a (former) liberal member of charlestown is funding this project.
    Its Interesting how the proposal for this development was first put forward when the Liberal Government took over from the Labour party in NSW.
    A project this big could only be taken and approved by state government.

    Iam sorry but this simply reeks of corruption and greed , the people of Newcastle are growing tired of this. Where is the truth? Where is the transparency ? What do the local people want?

    If SNL were serious in pleasing Whitebridge, than the first thing they would do is go back to the drawing board and maybe half the number of dwellings. That would be a good place to start.

  175. Lianne Blanch commented

    I do not think that a large multi-storey development is appropriate for this area. My children attend Whitebridge High School, and the traffic congestion in the area of the development is already very heavy at peak times, as has been mentioned in previous comments. There needs to be more planning at an infrastructure level otherwise this area will become too congested to properly function.

    There needs to be more parking for the existing shopping centre.

    This site would be ideal for an ecologically sensitive 'green' model development of low-rise medium density housing. Lake Macquarie Council should take leadership in encouraging best practice green development incorporating solar energy, grey-water recycling and low-toxic material use.

  176. Lynden Jacobi commented

    To the General Manager,
    I have been a resident of Whitebridge since 1984 and lived in the area & attended Whitebridge High School in the 70s. I have watched it change and grow. It has always been a vibrant and welcoming community.
    When the grassed open land between Kopa Street & Dudley road was first fenced off I became concerned about what was happening to our suburb. I wrote a submission to council, went to meetings and met with SNL. I was hopeful when I heard that there was an amended plan submitted. What a shock to see that the developers had not improved the plan in any way and have neglected to address most of the problems found by the Whitebridge Community Alliance, concerned residents & Lake Macquarie City Council in their first development application in 2013.
    Building Design
    The original plan proposed 87 dwellings with some up to 3 stories high. This amended plan is proposing 91 with some up to 5 stories high! How does this change address the issue that the development is an over development and not suited to this area? The LEP seems to imply that around 50 residences would be the appropriate number for a block this size. This will be almost double that.
    The density of this development is not in keeping with the surrounding area and the height of the proposed buildings along Dudley Road are 3 metres higher than the maximum allowed by LMCC guidelines. The building SNL propose to build next to the existing bottle shop will be more than double its height.
    The whole development will be overwhelming and imposing and even SNL acknowledges in its Visual Impact Statement “there are four viewpoints where the impact has been assessed as severe”. There are way too many dwellings and not enough outdoor space. The density proposed is not consistent with Lake Macquarie Council’s future plans for the area.
    There is a lack of integration of this development with the existing neighbourhood. It is known that developments which are well designed and fit in and enhance community amenity allow the new residents to integrate more readily with the existing community. The suggestion by the developer for methods to discourage Whitebridge locals from walking through this area will cause a feeling of segregation and “us & them” mentality.
    The physical layout and building structures have not been planned with an eye to how they would influence patterns of social interaction and increase the possibilities for informal social control (discouraging vandalism etc). There should be clear fields of vision to observe public spaces from individual units. It is important to provide space and opportunities for tenants and existing local residents to meet both for formal and informal activities.

    Public Amenity
    This project has no connection to the existing community.
    Providing public amenities (or not) affects perceptions of projects long after they are complete. Projects that provide amenities that are available to the public and not just to residents of the project, show evidence of earning acceptance from neighbours.
    This development is designed to be quite separate from the existing Whitebridge community. There are no features such as neighbourhood pathways or parks and the few mature trees which were to be preserved in the original DA are now to be cut down to allow for a road extension!
    Whitebridge residents are already upset about being denied access to the footpath that linked the eastern side of the suburb to the shops & public transport. This space has been used for many decades for recreational activities as well. The loss of our neighbourhood open space will have a negative impact on our children & adults. Surely a bit of common ground for existing & new residents is necessary in any new development. Including a park that can be enjoyed by the whole neighbourhood could help gaining higher acceptance by the whole community.
    Increased Traffic
    As far as I can tell none of the traffic and safety concerns have been addressed. If anything there will be more traffic movements than the original development suggested. At the moment the traffic along Dudley Road to the south of Lonus Avenue is often backed up past Station Street on school mornings & afternoons. The data on the original proposed development indicated an increase of around 340 car movements each day on Lonus Avenue. As it is there are residents of Lonus Avenue and the streets around there who park out on Dudley Road and walk home because it is so congested.
    Having the two entries at one end onto Kopa Street leaves only one route in and out on a road fronted by single-family houses with no footpaths.
    Increased traffic will make it more dangerous for pedestrians, cyclists & drivers. This area is home to a children’s park, pre-school, family daycare, church, tennis courts, shops & school. It is a high pedestrian/cycle zone with lots of elderly & children on or near the roads.
    The situation with parking near the Whitebridge shops will only get worse. It is dangerous as is and the addition of the new over-sized multi-use buildings and parking for those still lessens the current parking area used by the existing shops.
    Environmental Impacts
    The Fernleigh track and the narrow green corridor along it are absolutely essential to the health of a degraded environment. We live in a suburb with many wild animals including squirrel gliders, brushtail possums, ringtail possums, bandicoots, echidnas and fruit bats. There are numerous species of lizards including water dragons, land mullets, blue-tongues and eastern water skinks. Frogs including Perrons tree frog, Green tree frog, Eastern Swamp Frog, Striped Marsh Frog can be heard calling and the birds range from rosellas (eastern & rainbow), lorikeets & black cockatoos to forest owls, pardalotes, fairy wrens and brush turkeys. These animals are under pressure from loss of habitat already and the green corridor that connects Glenrock State Recreation area and the Awabakal Nature Reserve is vitally important.
    The amended DA proposes the road reserve and footpath encroach on this area by up to 6.3m! It also proposes to use the already narrow green corridor for storm water basins and swales!
    The road, footpath & the stormwater management facilities should all be built within the residential zone and not in the Conservation Zone.
    Thanks you

    Lynden Jacobi | Artree Creations
    lyndenjacobi@gmail.com
    PO Box 743 Charlestown NSW 2290
    T: +61 407 766 389

  177. Karina Currington commented

    Dear General Manager,
    RE : DA 1774/2013

    As my previous submissions against this project have stated, I am personally concerned as my family resides in one of the 11 properties adjoining this development. So I feel I am entitled to express my objection to the former and current proposals.

    I have been trying to keep up to date with the referrals and responses from various other government departments in relation to this project, but one thing I still cannot understand, which has been addressed by other concerned citizens in the past, is why the details on this Application Tracking site still lists the owner as Roads and Maritime Services. If this is so, then please explain if Roads and Maritime Services are footing the bill for this seemingly endless paperwork shuffle that has now been going nigh on one and a half years. And if the owner is not Roads and Maritime, then why has this not been corrected before now? It is quite misleading and fraudulent towards residents when they attempt to submit an objection without knowing who to direct their criticism towards.

    Secondly, I cannot understand why the current amended proposal has actually increased in dwelling numbers and height. Wasn't that what was objected to by LMCC, Mine Subsidence, etc in the first place? And if not, why not? The residents of Whitebridge expressed their concerns about 87 dwellings on such a small area of land and in response the developers kindly went back to the drawing board and increased the number to 92 with a height increase to boot. Now, if this is not deliberately antagonising the community, I'm not sure what would be. I cannot fathom why a project of this scale is even being considered when SNL are quite capable of building quality projects such as the one currently at Burton Rd, Eleebana which would have been a perfect development for this site, and could have been well underway by now, creating jobs and avoiding all this unnecessary tension.

    My former submissions with reasons opposing this development in its current form still stand, and hopefully all will be taken into consideration when choosing to reject or approve this DA.

    Yours Sincerely,
    Karina Currington

  178. Michele Purcell commented

    So here we are round 3 of submissions to this development.
    I hope all the other submissions are taken into account.
    1.There are too many dwellings here
    2. It is a traffic hazard
    3.The height is way too much
    4. in now way does it fit in with the surrounding area
    5. Its a wildlife corridor
    6. None of the local residents want it , and council is supposed to speak for them ,not for a greedy developer who has been before ICAC.
    7. If this gets through then we need to look at financial gains from council members as the developer is known to ICAC
    8. It is disgusting that we have had to submit 3 lots of complaints about this concrete jungle the developer has not only insulted the whole community with his ridicule and contempt but also members of the green party. They have upped the number of dwellings not downsized to a reasonable amount.
    9. we need to stand up to greedy developers who wish to blot our landscape with their badly designed structures

  179. Paula Rose commented

    I previously wrote to you on 21/09/2014 about this issue and am disappointed that there have been no changes to the original plan.

    It's Interesting how the proposal for this development was first put forward when the Liberal Government took over from the Labour Party in NSW. One would think after Andrew Cornwell admitted at ICAC last year to receiving $20,000 from property developers, and resigned, that this high density housing development would go ahead without major changes being made to the plan.

    I won't go over the many issues related to this development in my last letter but I do wish to highlight that a lower density development would be more in keeping with the area. I feel there is really not enough infrastructure to support the huge influx of residents it would bring. The new development should be integrated within the existing community. We are concerned about the size of the proposed development which could become a slum in the future with so many people crowded into a small space. Is it to be government subsidised public housing?

    This area was zoned conservation until the council chose to rezone it a few years ago with no community consultation. It adjoins the green corridor of the Fernleigh track. The effect on local wildlife that use this area as a corridor would be disastrous. It does not fit harmoniously with the existing environment.

    There has been no suggestion of any upgrades to the current road system to support this development. Potentially hundreds of extra cars will be using the intersections of Kopa Street and Lonus Avenue and Dudley Road on a regular basis. These roads are already at capacity on weekday mornings and afternoons.

    In summary the proposed development is highly unsuitable for the area. Please reassess taking into consideration the environment, parking, traffic and numerous other issues that have been raised by concerned residents.

  180. Leigh Donegan commented

    To the General Manager,

    I am a resident of Whitebridge, myself and my young family’s property backs onto the Fernleigh track about 100m from this proposed development site.

    We frequently use the Whitebridge shop area and our children attend the local school.

    We are deeply concerned about the density of this development and the ability for the local infrastructure to cope.

    We understand that this land needs to be developed, but the number of dwellings and the building heights proposed for this site would certainly make it inconsistent with the surrounding area.

    My understanding is that the density of this development is not consistent with what LMCC planned when they rezoned this land.

    I believe the development storm water facilities and roads should not intrude into the conservation land. The conservation land is there for a reason.

    Users of the Fernleigh track need to be able to access the Whitebridge Shops in a safe manner without having to cross the narrow bridge and busy roads.

    It’s often very difficult to get a park at the Whitebridge shops and this often causes the roundabout to come to a standstill as people are waiting for parks. If this development is to go ahead in its current form I'm concerned the shop area will be used as overflow for resident parking due to the large number of proposed dwellings, not to mention the extra traffic trying to access the shops via the single entry causing more bottle necks at the roundabout.

    One way in and one way out for via Kopa St for 91 dwellings onto an already congested road is going to further compound the problem at the roundabout as mentioned in the above paragraph.

    Please DO NOT approve this development in its current state.

    Kind Regards,

    Leigh Donegan

  181. Mrs. Mearns E. Hall commented

    21st March, 2015 Mrs. Mearns E. Hall
    84 Lonus Ave,
    Whitebridge, NSW, 2290

    The General Manager,
    Lake Macquarie City Council,
    PO Box 1906
    Hunter Region Mail Centre
    NSW 2310.

    Re: DA 1774/2013, Amended Plans
    Address: 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street, Whitebridge. NSW 2290.
    Applicant's Name: SNL Building Constructions Pty. Ltd.
    Dear Sir/Madam,

    In regards to the amended plans by SNL to council, they do not seem to have addressed even the first concerns by the community. I am still very concerned there is still only one exit/entry point in the subdivision by vehicles on Kopa Street. I am concerned still about the corner of Lonus Ave. and Kopa St., where I live, as the traffic will bottlenecked further, especially when Whitebridge High School is starting and finishing. It’s dangerous enough now.

    Most of the original concerns about the development are still there. No need to go over them again. They are in the first two submissions I wrote.

    One issue I have is SNL wanting to build a driveway and two parking spaces for Lot 23 dwelling on Council land. I would much prefer Kopa Street to be extended to the Twenty metre conservation boundary so that Lot 1,(vacant lot below Lot 3) North side of Kopa St. and SNL land, South side of Kopa St. equally have driveway access to the land.

    The environmental zone has a road carriageway, footpath and stormwater basins situated on it as well. How is a green corridor between Glenrock State Park and adjoining bushland expected to regenerate/rejuvenate when building is allowed in this zone. The residential zone should have these facilities not the environmental zone, which is also an asset protection zone for bush fires protection which means limited planting of flora in this area.

    The size of this development needs to be halved and kept within height limits.

    Progress is necessary for any community to advance and grow - but this ‘progress’ should
    never be at the expense of the existing community.

    Yours Sincerely
    Mrs. M. E. Hall

  182. Anthony G Holmes commented

    My concerns about this development relate to the density of habitation proposed development the lack of amenity for any residents, especially children, the massive increase in traffic that such habitation density is bound to cause in an area that had very poor traffic flow at peak times and the general impact on the environment of a high density housing.

    I am alarmed that these likely to arise negative effects will impact the current and future residents of the area only after the proposed development is a fait accompli and irreversible.

    Whilst provision of housing is a noble cause and necessary as the population increases, it is only sensible that accommodation suit the community rather than the pecuniary interests of the developer.

    I urge the council to consider very seriously the detailed concerns of the community and its peak representative group, the WCA.

  183. Craig Smailes commented

    Your comment: As an adjoining land owner (1 Kopa St Whitebridge), I take exception to the statement made by Wade Morris, Approvals Coordinator, SNL Building Construction PTY LTD. in Revised Documentation, DA/1774/2013, MIXED USE AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, KOPA ST AND DUDLEY RD., WHITEBRIDGE, PAGE 2 under heading ROAD DESIGN KOPA STREET, that "Only one dwelling (Lot 23) has access off Kopa St.". My substantial block of land (approx 5000sq. m.) is currently undeveloped, however I will require driveway access to any subdivision that is deemed suitavble to the area. This may require the extension of Kopa St to the boundary of the conservation zone that bounds my land to the east. A further extension of Kopa St will allow for not only extensive public parking for visitors to any development that may be approved on Lot 23 Kopa St, but also for users of the Fearnley Track. I am a supporter of a development that listens to the communtiy, takes into account the lack of infrastructure currently in place and one that is not only sustainable, but one that is supported by the local and wider community.

  184. Mrs. Margaret McDougall commented

    20/120 Redhead Rd
    Redhead, NSW, 2290
    06/04/2015

    Lake Macquarie City Council
    The General Manager
    PO Box 1906
    Hunter Region Mail Centre,2310

    Margaret Mcdougall:

    I am a resident of Dudley and I strongly oppose the proposed development at 142-146 Dudley Road & 2-4 Kopa Street, Whitebridge,2290.
    DA No. 1774/2013.

    Please refer to my previous submissions as all of my concerns (which haven’t been addressed) including concerns stated below, still apply.

    The build height of almost 14 m is completely out of context with the surrounding 2 storey design of new buildings.

    Staging of the developement raises concerns over noise pollution, increased traffic congestion. After reading SNL report their comment ” we will get used to the buildings and the trees will eventually camouflage them” is a ludicrous patronizing statement and unacceptable.

    This ’Developement ’ should it go ahead will undoubtedly set a precedent in similar zoned areas which is not the desired future that the majority of residents want. The density of 91 units is not consistent with the LEP 2014 planning at the time of rezoning.

    The environmental zone has a road carriageway, footpath and stormwater basins situated on it as well. How is a green corridor between Glenrock State Park and adjoining bushland expected to regenerate/rejuvenate when building is allowed in this zone. The residential zone should have these facilities not the environmental zone, which is also an asset protection zone for bush fires protection which means limited planting of flora in this area.

    This new proposal ignores the ecological importance of the green corridor connecting Glenrock State Consevation Area and the Awabakal Nature Reserve.

    Kopa St has the only egress for vehicles from the 91 dwellings. One issue I have is SNL wanting to build a driveway and two parking spaces for Lot 23 dwelling on Council land. I would much prefer Kopa Street to be extended to the Twenty metre conservation boundary so that Lot 1,(vacant lot below Lot 3) North side of Kopa St. and SNL land, South side of Kopa St. equally have driveway access to the land.

    This is a gross over-development of the site with total disregard for the current streetscape and street character of the area. No attempt has been made to integrate the development with the current surroundings. Please do not acceopt this DA in its current form.

    Thank You.

  185. Katherine Cox commented

    I strongly oppose the proposed development at 142-146 Dudley Road & 2-4 Kopa Street, Whitebridge,2290.
    DA No. 1774/2013.
    I am a resident of Whitebridge, and live on the western end of Kopa Street, about 100m from this proposed development site.
    My family frequently use the Whitebridge shop area and I have a teenage child attending the local school. We are deeply concerned about the density of this development and the ability for the local infrastructure to cope.
    Please refer to my previous submissions as all of my concerns (which haven’t been addressed) including concerns stated below, still apply.
    We understand that this land needs to be developed, but the number of dwellings and the building heights proposed for this site would certainly make it inconsistent with the surrounding area.
    The build height is completely out of context with the surrounding 2 storey design of new buildings.
    My understanding is that the density of this development is not consistent with what LMCC planned when they rezoned this land. Should this ’Development’ go ahead it will undoubtedly set a precedent in similar zoned areas which is not the desired future that the majority of residents want. The density of 91 units is not consistent with the LEP 2014 planning at the time of rezoning.
    The environmental zone has a road carriageway, footpath and storm water basins situated on it as well. How is a green corridor between Glenrock State Park and adjoining bush land expected to regenerate/rejuvenate when building is allowed in this zone. The residential zone should have these facilities not the environmental zone
    This new proposal ignores the ecological importance of the green corridor connecting Glenrock State Conservation Area and the Awabakal Nature Reserve.
    It’s often very difficult to get a park at the Whitebridge shops and this often causes the roundabout to come to a standstill as people are waiting for parks. If this development is to go ahead in its current form I'm concerned the shop area will be used as overflow for resident parking due to the large number of proposed dwellings, not to mention the extra traffic trying to access the shops via the single entry causing more bottle necks at the roundabout.
    One way in and one way out for via Kopa St for 91 dwellings onto an already congested road is going to further compound the problem at the roundabout as mentioned in the above paragraph.
    I am also extremely concerned about the increase in traffic, especially the intersection of Kopa Street and Lonus Avenue. The western side of Kopa Street is currently a fairly quiet area and often has children and families congregating for cricket and tennis. I do not see that this would be a suitable thoroughfare for the additional vehicles (of the 91 residences) onto Warren Road.
    This is a gross over-development of the site with total disregard for the current streetscape and street character of the area. No attempt has been made to integrate the development with the current surroundings. This development must be suitable for the area and enhance the suburb.
    Please do not accept this DA in its current form.

  186. Carmen Anne McCartney commented

    March 7th, 2015

    Lake Macquarie City Council
    PO Box 1906 Hunter Region Mail Centre
    NSW 2310
    Email: council@lakemac.nsw.gov.au

    This submission is regarding the following development:
    DA number: 1774/2013
    Address: 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street
    Whitebridge NSW.
    Planning alerts: 364483

    This submission is made by:
    Name: Dr. Carmen Anne McCartney
    Address: Lonus Ave Whitebridge, NSW 2290

    Attention: The General Manager

    I am a resident and scientist with a background in marsupial conservation and management. I currently work for an organisation called FAUNA Research Alliance.

    In my previous submission dated February 10th 2015 I stated:

    “The vegetation adjacent to and within this proposed development represents a corridor that may be critical to the movement, dispersal and interchange of genetic material of threatened species from Glenrock State Conservation Area, the Awabakal Nature Reserve and Jewells Wetland. The specific section of “corridor” at the proposed development site needs to be conserved, enhanced and managed to ensure that it is functional.”

    I now understand that,

    Recent studies carried out at the University of Newcastle have recorded sightings of the threatened squirrel glider, Petaurus norfolcensis in both Glenrock State Conservation Area and the Awabakal Reserve.

    In light of this I again state,

    The vegetation adjacent to and within this proposed development represents a corridor that may be critical to the movement, dispersal and interchange of genetic material of a threatened species.

    I also reiterate my three main concerns/issues described in my previous submission:

    1) There is no evidence of consultation with the necessary key local stakeholders and wildlife corridor experts and ecologists at the time of this development proposal Version 1 and 2 (or at the time of rezoning East Charlestown Bypass) OR when the “Referral Response, Development- Flora/Fauna” dated 16/2/15 was produced.

    I would suggest that those people (council environmental planning officers and experts outside council) responsible for the draft “LMCC Squirrel Glider Planning and Management Guidelines 2015” would be a good start for appropriate consultation.

    2) The Lake Macquarie Native Vegetation and Corridors Map prepared by LMCC describes the vegetation adjacent to and within this proposed development to have “corridor” function, yet there appears to be no documentation that further defines its function on a local or regional scale and examines faunal dispersal through this region. Specifically, there is also no documentation with reference to the importance of this corridor for squirrel glider.

    I believe that the correct assessment should be in the form of a “7 Part Test” to “determine whether an action, development or activity is likely to significantly affect threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats either directly or indirectly.”

    3) In my view the development does not propose conditions that are conducive to a viable corridor for the squirrel glider or meet E2 /7(2) conditions such as “Conserve, enhance and manage corridors to facilitate species movement, dispersal, and interchange of genetic material.”

    I note that the “Referral Response, Development- Flora/Fauna” to DA/1774/2013 (dated 16/2/15) states,

    “ The revised Landscape Master Plan will improve ecological function of the faunal movement corridor identified under the LMCC Native Vegetation and Corridors Mapping.”

    How can this conclusion of “improved function” be made if the relevant consultation (see 1) and assessment ( see 2) have not been made?

    Current (Squirrel Glider Review for Morriset Structure Plan Area page 32-33) and the draft “LMCC Squirrel Glider Planning and Management Guidelines 2015” provides criteria that should be followed to ensure that this development does in fact “improve ecological function” and provide a viable corridor for the squirrel glider so that this local population is not further fragmented into nonviable sub populations.

    This application should not be approved in its current form until due consideration is given to the impact of the development on the Fernleigh Track squirrel glider movement corridor.

    Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any assistance.

    Sincerely,

    Carmen McCartney

  187. Kristen commented

    I have objected to this development from the outset. There has been no real alterations by the developers in line with either council regulations/policies or community consultation. This development is inappropriate for the area - the developer is making a profit grab at the cost of the surrounding community, it's environment and traditional way of life. Why should this developer be allowed to 'fly in the face' of council and the community for his own gain? This is an inappropriate use of the land - it must be significantly down sized or there will be road chaos in the streets all over whitebridge.

  188. Anika and Rob Roohan commented

    To the General Manager,

    Please accept this letter as a submission regarding the proposed development (DA 1774/2013) on Dudley Road Whitebridge.

    We hope you take into consideration our concerns around this development. As local residents who have moved to the area in 2012, we are proud of the strong sense of community the area has, in addition to its unique environmental characteristics. The community cares about the suburb and will work hard to maintain its identity as a caring, social and environmentally aware area.

    In addition to these vital positive points which are threatened by the aforementioned development, we wish to draw attention to potentially significant systematic oversight we feel has not been addressed to date.

    In reviewing the Development Application, it appears that the property “owner” remains the NSW State Government (Roads and Maritime Services) and not the developer “applicant” SNL Building Constructions Pty Ltd. It can therefore be derived from this that the sale of the land may in fact be subject to the approval of the Development Application.

    A potential conflict of interest arises in the approval process, with the approval (and therefore sale) being contingent upon the Joint Regional Planning Panel, a subsidiary of the NSW State Government. We are concerned that the beneficiary of the sale (NSW State Government) cannot remain an independent party in such a process.

    As it can be reasonably determined from the Development Application that the NSW State Government remains the owner of the site, based on the amount of community concern and opposition regarding the environmental impact of the development, the sale should not proceed for the following reasons:

    NSW State Governments Financial Position 2012-2015

    It is important to consider the change in economic circumstances between the NSW State Government’s financial position from 2012 when the “sale” of the site was initiated, and now, in 2015.

    In 2012 the NSW State Government had just been through the Global Financial Crisis and was one of, if not the worst, performing States in the country financially.

    This has since turned around significantly with the State now the nation’s top performing economy with multiple avenues of available funds which could easily cover the sale of the land; the leasing of Newcastle Port is one such example.

    The following is taken from the NSW Liberal Party website;

    “NSW was ranked last of all Australian States and Territories in 2010 on key economic indicators, under NSW Liberals & Nationals, NSW is Number One Again”

    We appreciate that the department owner, the Roads and Maritime Service have budgets to adhere to, and revenue from the sale of the site would be directed to other projects, however with the fiscal difference between when the sale was initiated to now, the community objection would outweigh the benefits. There would appear to be no need to gain revenue from the sale of assets when multiple government departments are now displaying ability to generate increased revenue via improved performance.

    Environmental Significance

    Of most importance is the environmental significance of the site. The corridor linking Glenrock State Conservation area and Awabakal Nature Reserve is part of an area currently being researched by various groups, including Newcastle University.

    Studies have already indicated the eradication of species within the area due to urban encroachment that leads to inbreeding and ultimately extinction. The site in question is the central point within the corridor that flows between these two extremely environmentally fragile areas.

    Development of 142 Dudley Road would see irreversible damage caused to Glenrock State Conservation area and Awabakal State Recreation Area both of which feed into the greater Lake Macquarie Wetlands Park.

    Development should not proceed until the outcome of the ongoing studies is known. Alternatively NSW State Government owned land which forms part of the corridor, should be transferred to the appropriate department who are capable of managing the environmental aspects of the land adequately. Replanting of new native trees is of negligible impact in ensuring this area is supported.

    Community Concern

    The response of the community against the development has been phenomenal, raising concerns around traffic/congestion, privacy, amenity, and safety. Multiple submissions have been tabled by residents and community groups.

    On all occasions the development application amendments have demonstrated arrogance in opposition to community concern, and failed to address any of the key issues.

    Given the above information, and the possibility that the owner of the site remains the NSW State Government AND the body responsible for ultimately approving the development is the NSW State Government AND the beneficiary of DA 1774/2013 is the NSW State Government, we see no way that the sale of the site and the Development Application can proceed in its current form.

  189. John Mcdougall commented

    21/120 Redhead Rd
    Redhead, NSW, 2290
    06/04/2015

    Lake Macquarie City Council
    The General Manager
    PO Box 1906
    Hunter Region Mail Centre,2310

    John Mcdougall

    I am a resident of Dudley and I strongly oppose the proposed development at 142-146 Dudley Road & 2-4 Kopa Street, Whitebridge,2290.
    DA No. 1774/2013.

    As the DA in question has increased in density and height my previous submissions and concerns still stand. Included below are my added concerns.

    Along Dudley Rd the mixed-use structure will be immediately noticable as it looms out of context with the existing business units. The top parapet on the bottle shop is approx. 6m and the proposed height of the mixed use building is almost 14m. How can this be an advantage to the community. SNL's remark of their proposal ’being consistent with the emerging character of Whitebridge is ludicrous spin.

    The length of time this construcion will take will impact on the adjoining and surrounding residences for possibly years. This again is totally unacceptable in a Neighbourhood Centre.

    The density which is being proposed is inconsistent with the planning involved when LMCC rezoned the land.

    Endangered species such as the sugar glider will be under further pressure due to SNL using the environmental zone for a shared pathway, storm water management basins and swales and also part of the internal roadway. This is in direct contradiction of LEP 2014. As this zone is in an APZ there will be fewer tree plantings further compounding the rehabilitation of the area.

    As there is only one egress along Kopa St. I fail to understand how both the council and SNL whitewash the fact that this increase in traffic is not an issue. Both these parties have stated that there are existing pressures on parking and at the roundabout and with no suggestion or expectations of any road upgrades this will lead to further gridlock and inflamed behaviour.

    I urge the council to please use common sense in their approach to this developement, it’s our lives and our future at hand.

    Thank you.

  190. Anne-Marie Abell commented

    Dear Development Assessment Officer and JRPP

    RE: Submission regarding Amended Development Application DA/1774/2013 at 142 Dudley Road, WHITEBRIDGE NSW 2290

    I’m not opposed to development on the site, but ask the amended development application is modified so it is consistent with the culture, values and needs of our community, and supports the core values of Lake Macquarie’s Lifestyle 2030 Strategy.

    In particular, we ask the following issues with the proposed amended development application be addressed before the application is approved:

    1. Whitebridge is a two-storey suburb. The proposed four-storey buildings (with underground car park) is unprecedented and too high. Buildings of this height will have adverse impact on the character and culture of our suburb and community. The design elements do not enhance the amenity of the area. There are significant shadowing issues which have not been addressed. The development should have a height limit of two stories. Design elements should be improved. Shadowing issues should be addressed.
    2. The proposed development is too dense. The number of dwellings should be reduced to approximately 60, which is reasonable given the size of the land, character of the suburb and the medium-density zoning.
    3. There is insufficient parking to accommodate the proposed extra commercial space plus visitors to people living in the new dwellings. The development should provide for additional parking to support the additional parking demand it will create.
    4. Local roads are already operating at capacity. The amended development application does not adequately provide for the increase in vehicle and pedestrian traffic that will result because of the additional residents and commercial activities. Failure to adequately address traffic impacts will result in a neighbourhood centre that is unsafe and congested, and will greatly reduce the efficiency and liveability of Whitebridge and surrounding suburbs including Dudley and Redhead. The development application should adequately address traffic impacts to ensure vehicle safety, pedestrian safety, and traffic flow are maintained.
    5. The development should reflect the principles of ecologically sustainable design.

    Thank you for your consideration. I trust these issues will be addressed so the final development design will enhance the Sustainability, Equity, Efficiency and Liveability of Whitebridge, rather than detract from it.

  191. William Abell commented

    Dear Development Assessment Officer and JRPP

    RE: Submission regarding Amended Development Application DA/1774/2013 at 142 Dudley Road, WHITEBRIDGE NSW 2290

    I’m not opposed to development on the site, but ask the amended development application is modified so it is consistent with the culture, values and needs of our community, and supports the core values of Lake Macquarie’s Lifestyle 2030 Strategy.

    In particular, we ask the following issues with the proposed amended development application be addressed before the application is approved:

    1. Whitebridge is a two-storey suburb. The proposed four-storey buildings (with underground car park) is unprecedented and too high. Buildings of this height will have adverse impact on the character and culture of our suburb and community. The design elements do not enhance the amenity of the area. There are significant shadowing issues which have not been addressed. The development should have a height limit of two stories. Design elements should be improved. Shadowing issues should be addressed.
    2. The proposed development is too dense. The number of dwellings should be reduced to approximately 60, which is reasonable given the size of the land, character of the suburb and the medium-density zoning.
    3. There is insufficient parking to accommodate the proposed extra commercial space plus visitors to people living in the new dwellings. The development should provide for additional parking to support the additional parking demand it will create.
    4. Local roads are already operating at capacity. The amended development application does not adequately provide for the increase in vehicle and pedestrian traffic that will result because of the additional residents and commercial activities. Failure to adequately address traffic impacts will result in a neighbourhood centre that is unsafe and congested, and will greatly reduce the efficiency and liveability of Whitebridge and surrounding suburbs including Dudley and Redhead. The development application should adequately address traffic impacts to ensure vehicle safety, pedestrian safety, and traffic flow are maintained.
    5. The development should reflect the principles of ecologically sustainable design.

    Thank you for your consideration. I trust these issues will be addressed so the final development design will enhance the Sustainability, Equity, Efficiency and Liveability of Whitebridge, rather than detract from it.

  192. Curli Abell commented

    Dear Development Assessment Officer and JRPP

    RE: Submission regarding Amended Development Application DA/1774/2013 at 142 Dudley Road, WHITEBRIDGE NSW 2290

    I’m not opposed to development on the site, but ask the amended development application is modified so it is consistent with the culture, values and needs of our community, and supports the core values of Lake Macquarie’s Lifestyle 2030 Strategy.

    In particular, we ask the following issues with the proposed amended development application be addressed before the application is approved:

    1. Whitebridge is a two-storey suburb. The proposed four-storey buildings (with underground car park) is unprecedented and too high. Buildings of this height will have adverse impact on the character and culture of our suburb and community. The design elements do not enhance the amenity of the area. There are significant shadowing issues which have not been addressed. The development should have a height limit of two stories. Design elements should be improved. Shadowing issues should be addressed.
    2. The proposed development is too dense. The number of dwellings should be reduced to approximately 60, which is reasonable given the size of the land, character of the suburb and the medium-density zoning.
    3. There is insufficient parking to accommodate the proposed extra commercial space plus visitors to people living in the new dwellings. The development should provide for additional parking to support the additional parking demand it will create.
    4. Local roads are already operating at capacity. The amended development application does not adequately provide for the increase in vehicle and pedestrian traffic that will result because of the additional residents and commercial activities. Failure to adequately address traffic impacts will result in a neighbourhood centre that is unsafe and congested, and will greatly reduce the efficiency and liveability of Whitebridge and surrounding suburbs including Dudley and Redhead. The development application should adequately address traffic impacts to ensure vehicle safety, pedestrian safety, and traffic flow are maintained.
    5. The development should reflect the principles of ecologically sustainable design.

    Thank you for your consideration. I trust these issues will be addressed so the final development design will enhance the Sustainability, Equity, Efficiency and Liveability of Whitebridge, rather than detract from it.

  193. Nicole Gintings commented

    To Whom It May Concern,

    As a local resident I would like to express my objection to the proposed development in Whitebridge DA-1772-2013. I do not object to the development of this vacant land, however I believe this is an over-development and does not integrate with the existing surrounds, as per Lake Macquarie City Council's Lifestyle 2030 strategy.

    I have already submitted objections to this previously, however are examining the current application my previous objections are still relevant and have not been addressed

    I object for the following specific reasons;

    * The traffic and parking congestion will be pushed to a dangerous level with the addition of 91 new dwellings all exiting onto Lonus Avenue, with preschools, day cares, high school, sporting fields, childrens' park, etc. along the same 'dead-end' road. There have already been accidents involving children and many close calls and as my children will be walking to and attending Whitebridge highschool this is a major concern for me. The lack of adequate and efficient public transport ensures that most of these dwellings will be adding an additional 2 or 3 cars to the neighbourhood.

    * The aesthetics of this development do not in any way integrate with the surrounding environment. There are no 4 storey dwellings in the area and it will create a concrete eyesore. This design is far more suited to an inner city area rather than a suburban village. The units should be a MAXIMUM of 2 storey and have less dwellings attached along a single wall, to attempt to create some harmony with its village and natural surrounds.

    * There is an obvious lack of green space in this development, aside from the mandatory (minimum) nature corridor along the Fernleigh Track. Again this creates total disharmony with the existing surrounds, raises concerns about storm water runoff, creates a massive power usage using air conditioners to compensate the masses of concrete and clothes dryers as there is no room to hang washing, and once again creates a visual eyesore.

    As an updated objection I was very disheartened to see that the park that had been planned (and was used to 'sweeten' the deal with the community) will now be a private park unavailable to the community. This decision alone speaks volumes about the type of development being planned.

    LMCC and the JRPP have an opportunity to influence what could be a remarkable development promoting the beautiful environment and community that Whitebridge and the local area have to offer. I sincerely hope common sense prevails and the future of this area is paramount to your decision.

    Thank you,
    N. Gintings

  194. Jill Mascord commented

    It is extremely disappointing to see the plans for the proposed development of Dudley Road/Kopa Street have not addressed the real issues raised by the community.
    DENSITY:
    92 dwellings and 4 storeys in Whitebridge? The developer has obviously taken no care to consider marrying this new development into the existing suburb. This is a grossover-development of the site. The majority of Whitebridge is single-storey, detached single-family homes. This development is not in keeping with the character of Whitebridge.
    TRAFFIC CONGESTION:
    I often use the Whitebridge shops as a convenient place to stop and shop. The addition of 92 dwellings will totally detract from the convenience of using Whitebridge shops, thus negatively impacting on business there.
    SAFETY:
    I feel concerned for safety if this development is approved. Safety will be an issue when using the shops and when crossing busy Dudley Road with my grandchildren. Additionally, I am concerned for my grandchildren’s future safety when they attend Whitebridge High as a result of traffic congestions and due to the possibility of an increase in crime and anti-social behaviour which is often associated with developments of this type.
    SOCIAL IMPACT:
    Whitebridge currently enjoys a relaxed, village atmosphere which is appropriate for an area accommodating a pre-school, long daycare centre, highschool, park, tennis courts and access to the Fenleigh Track. This village atmosphere will be severely compromised if this development is to go ahead in its current form as it is in stark contrast with the character of the suburb.
    ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS:
    ...or lack there of, on the part of the developer. Suggesting the environmental corridor be used to accommodate a thoroughfare between the Fernleigh Track and the shops is not what the community had in mind when they encouraged the developer to allow permeability through the site. It appears the developer would rather spend their time pretending to address issues rather than actually compromising on anything!
    Council has a responsibility to its current and future residents to not be intimidated by the persuasive powers of self-interested developers.

    I trust the deciding bodies will clearly see the lack of compliance with LMCC guidelines for development in a neighbourhood centre.

    Jill Mascord

  195. Laurie Mascord commented

    Re: DA/1774/2013
    I wish to object to the current development proposal. It is entirely inappropriate for a NEIGHBOURHOOD centre, which is the classification of Whitebridge as assigned by LMCC.
    This DA reflects the guidelines for development in a REGIONAL centre.

    Density and Design/
    With a proposed 91 dwellings, this is a gross and opportunistic over-development of the site. SNL are proposing 54 dwellings per hectare, whereas LMCC Lifestyle 2030 stipulate 30-40 dwellings per hectare.
    The 7(2) conservation land should be excluded from any calculation. This type of development is entirely out of sync with a suburb of majority single-family housing.
    Section 2.7 of the Lake Macquarie City Council Development Control Plan No. 1 “deals with the need for development to respond to the Local Context by identifying desirable elements of its existing character that will contribute to the future character of an area.”
    (page 1) The proposed development does not incorporate any of the ‘desirable elements’ of Whitebridge, nor does it reflect its ‘existing character’.

    Environmental Impact/
    The 7(2) land should also remain independent from pathways enabling permeability through the site. The ecological corridor must be respected as important and irreplaceable for flora and fauna and should in no way be impacted by any development.
    Social Impact/ In their report on Increasing Density in Australia (2012), Giles-Corti, Ryan and Foster explain how environmental criminologists assert that safe neighbourhoods are characterised by greater land-use homogeneity, with less mixed-use development and more single-family housing. The proposed development is in opposition to these characteristics of safe neighbourhoods. Aestethically, the proposed development is imposing, shocking and unbefitting, not only for residents and shoppers, but for recreation-makers on the Fernleigh Track, which is one of the jewels in the crown of
    Newcastle and Lake Macquarie. The visual and atmospherical contrast between Whitebridge and the rest of the experience on the Fernleigh Track would be shameful.
    The request that developer’s contribution s94 be waived is unjustified. The ’urban space’ proposed on Dudley Rd is not something that was requested by, or even desired by,
    the community, due to its strong potential for anti-social behaviour. When one takes in
    to account the developer’s plan to use public land for parts of the project (Dudley Rd for the ’urban space’ and Kopa St for private driveway to Lot 23), this request becomes
    not only ’cheeky’, but blatantly disrespectful. Safety and Traffic Problems/
    A single entry/exit point, that being Kopa Street, for 92 dwellings will clearly cause tremendous changes in traffic conditions not only in Kopa Street, but on Lonus Avenue, and the roundabout via which most drivers access Lonus Avenue. The adjacent park, which is used regularly, the tennis courts and the oval will become much less-pleasant places to frequent. This will break down community ties. The traffic along Lonus Avenue will also put families of the Birralee Long Day Care Centre at risk. Students accessing
    Whitebridge High School by foot along Lonus will be placed in greater danger, and families accessing Whitebridge Preschool in Tumpoa Street will be negatively affected. It
    is already difficult and sometimes dangerous for buses using Lonus Ave to access the high school. Traffic along Dudley Rd will inevitably increase, which will increase the likli
    hood of accidents for people attempting to turn onto this road from side-streets. It is
    already hazardous to do so, as is it hazardous to walk the streets of Whitebridge, particularly when attempting to cross Dudley Rd. Considering the current
    insurge of young families, this is in opposition to the desired character of the area.

    General/
    IF this development is approved, a precedent will be set for land of this zoning to be developed in a similarly careless manner, thus putting more of our suburbs at risk of disaffection. Within Whitebridge, there exists massive potential for dramatic increases in density, due to the zoning of land on Kopa Street and Lonus Avenue. In other words, these problems have the potential to become even bigger. A careful, predictive view is needed to ensure this suburb grows at a manageable rate. The community of Whitebridge and surrounding suburbs have clearly, confidently and justifiably stated
    their lack of support for this project. This must have weight against the self-gratifying intentions of a developer. Residents have communicated an understanding and acceptance of the inevitability of the site being developed; it is the nature of this development which is being rejected. An appropriate development which adds value to the community and which reflects the spirit and regulations of the governing council
    would be embraced.

    Laurie Mascord

  196. Nathan Tutton commented

    I write to object to the proposed development at Dudley Rd and Kopa St, Whitebridge.

    It is extremely disappointing and unfortunate that the most concerning issues highlighted by the community have not been addressed and that the development is still in this entirely unsatisfactory from.

    Traffic congestion will be a significant problem, especially along Lonus Avenue
    and at the roundabout, and especially during school drop-off and pick-up times, where there are already long delays.

    It seems very unreasonable that the only proposed entry and exit points for a
    development of that size is via Kopa Street, which links to Lonus Avenue, and Lonus
    Avenue is the street used for Whitebridge High School, Whitebridge Preschool in Tumpoa Street AND Birralee Long Day Care Centre. All of these also link to the roundabout.

    I feel very concerned about even walking with my one-year old daughter to the park if this development was to go ahead, and, in the future, walking to the preschool with the need to cross and walk along these roads if that level of traffic will be present. This seems very out-of-character to have this level of traffic attempting to move around a suburb.

    Additionally, it is already becoming very difficult at times, and dangerous, to turn from Station Street, where I live, on to Dudley Road due to the traffic passing though on its way to Redhead and Dudley. This will only worsen if the development attempting to
    accommodate such a high number of people was to go ahead.

    Dropping into the shops on your way home from work will become a thing of the past, as parking problems will inevitably arise as current parking places, of which there are already too few, will be taken over for the development. This will also place more pressure, traffic and congestion onto Dudley Road as people attempt to find parks there instead.

    The Fernleigh Track will also be affected, as it will lose a lot of its beauty and tranquility at this Whitebridge stop and will discourage cyclists, walkers and joggers from making Whitebridge shops and cafes their destination. This will adversley affect businesses in the area. The buildings need to be set way further back so as to not impose upon the experience of the Track.

    Finally, this development will look very unattractive and will not match its surroundings. It has the potential to become the embarrassment of Whitebridge, which will become known for its out-of-place development rather than for its pleasant, community vibe.

    I urge the deciding bodies to use common sense and forward thinking to ensure that
    the developer is made to consider the greater good and not purely profit from this amazing opportunity to develop the suburb of Whitebridge. Current and future residents deserve to be protected and considered to ensure a precedent is set that encourages quality and positive development of our area.

    Nathan Tutton

  197. Tracey Tutton commented

    I wish to object to DA 1774/2013 on Dudley Rd, Whitebridge.

    The density is too high. 91 dwellings is entirely out of character for the area, and indeed for ANY Neighbourhood Centre.The land was deemed suitable for 30-40 dwellings by LMCC when it was rezoned. This number is much more realistic and acceptable, and I believe there would not be community opposition against this number. To suggest more is pure opportunistic over-development.

    Considering the land along Lonus Avenue is not yet fully developed to its inevitable potential under the new zoning, the impact of this potential absolutely must be considered alongside this new development in regard to strains on the local infrastructure. The addition of probably 1000 car movements a day could be reasonably assessed as presenting the community with further congestion and safety issues.

    This development will substantially increase the danger for pedestrians in the Whitebridge area. I regularly walk, with my 1 year old daughter, to the shops and park. This possibility of accessing shops amenities without the need to drive was a strong drawcard for us in choosing to live in this area.

    I am also concerned about the noise pollution which will occur as a result of this increase in traffic AND of the dramatic increase in the number of people who will suddenly be living opposite us, in extremely close proximity. The level of noise as a result of the amount of cars, airconditioners, tvs, music, voices etc that
    will eminate from a development of that type will definitely have an adverse impact on the residents of Whitebridge.

    This development is in stark contrast to the family-friendly atmosphere of Whitebridge, which is another reason we chose this area in which to live. This type of development, which involves so many people living in such a confined area, promotes an unfamiliar and suspicious vibe, where residents can not easily know and become acquainted with other members of their community. It has a strong possibility of becoming an ”us” and ”them” mentality, whereby you live in ”the development” or you live in the ”normal” parts of the suburb. This will not support a cohesive community atmosphere and could breed tension and resentment.

    This development will look extremely out-of-place as Whitebridge is predominately single storey detached houses. To allow a development incorporating 4 storeys is irresponsible and inconsiderate to those who have already chosen to make Whitebridge their home.

    Change and progress is inevitable and necessary, but must be achieved in an appropriate manner.
    A development must be a positive addition to a suburb, NOT a detriment.

    I trust you will acknowledge our concerns and act accordingly.

    Tracey Tutton

  198. Catherine James commented

    I am writing to register my concern and objection to the proposed Whitebridge development DA-1774-2013. I have submitted previous objections, however these concerns have clearly not been addressed (they have in fact been made worse) in the current plan so my previous objections still stand.

    I do not object to the development of this parcel of land, however this current proposal is an excessive over development which is not appropriate or socially sustainable within this area.

    1. I believe that LMCC medium density zoning requirements intended any development to be suited to the area in which it was to be built and would harmonise, or ideally improve, the local surrounds. There are no 3 or 4 storey buildings in the entire area. These zoning requirements could still be met with far fewer residences, and would alleviate many of the associated problems (listed below).

    2. This large development places enormous strain on an already congested traffic and parking situation. The local shops rarely have enough parks for the current residents and Lonus Avenue, the roundabout, Dudley Road and the nearby streets often have accidents or 'near misses'. The addition of 200 cars to this small area is completely unsustainable and dangerous. Lonus Avenue houses a highschool, preschool, day care and childrens' park, which already have limited safe access and parking.

    3. The social issues raised from such an overcrowded development are serious. There is no personal space for residents to entertain or spend their time, meaning they are forced to use the local areas' already limited resources and amenities. The developer has stated that they will be building homes aimed at families. I have two small children and these 'family homes' with no outdoor space and no communal space and will share a wall with neighbours on both sides would be disastrous in a suburban setting. This will only create conflict and boredom, especially with teenage residents.

    4. I believe the LMCC has been taking its environmental responsibilities seriously. However, the complete disregard for environmental concerns within this development proposal are alarming. All dwellings will be fitted with clothes dryers instead of washing lines, all dwellings will need to be constantly air conditioned as there will be no open space to allow breezes and absorbtion of heat, no green space for the encouragement of native fauna and no natural land to aid the seepage of storm water.
    A 3 or 4 bedroom home NEEDS to have personal outdoor space to accommodate that number of inhabitants and to relieve social pressure on the surrounding community.

    The primary concern of the LMCC and the JRPP should be the well being and success of its communities, both present and future. This development should provide quality housing that complements the local area rather than low quality, tightly crammed housing that disconnects from its immediate surrounds and neighbours.

  199. Beau Rouse commented

    I oppose this development in it's current form as it is inappropriate for the site and location. Other new town houses built in the area are a reasonable two storey height. My understanding is that these plans exceed the Lake Macquarie City Council 10m height limit for buildings by over 3m. Most importantly, the density proposed for this site does not align with the vision shared by LMCC and residents when this area of land was rezoned.

  200. Sylvie Jacobi-McCarthy commented

    I oppose the development plans for 91 dwellings in Whitebridge. This proposed development would result in a jarring change to density that would have negative repercussions for the whole community, new residents included. I understand that low to medium density housing is most appropriate for this piece of land. The residents of Whitebridge want a development that is in keeping with our current community. Furthermore I have viewed the plans and I believe that this proposal ignores the ecological importance of the green corridor bordering the Fernleigh Track that runs between Glenrock State Conservation Area and the Awabakal Nature Reserve.

  201. Scott Henderson commented

    Dear Development Assessment Officer and JRPP
    Submission regarding Amended Development Application DA/1774/2013 at 142 Dudley Road, WHITEBRIDGE NSW 2290
    I’m not opposed to development on the site, but ask the amended development application is modified so it is consistent with the culture, values and needs of our community, and supports the core values of Lake Macquarie’s Lifestyle 2030 Strategy.
    In particular, we ask the following issues with the proposed amended development application be addressed before the application is approved:
    1. Whitebridge is a two-storey suburb. The proposed four-storey buildings (with underground carpark) is unprecedented and too high. Buildings of this height will have adverse impact on the character and culture of our suburb and community. The design elements do not enhance the amenity of the area. There are significant shadowing issues which have not been addressed. The development should have a height limit of two stories. Design elements should be improved. Shadowing issues should be addressed.
    2. The proposed development is too dense. The number of dwellings should be reduced to approximately 60, which is reasonable given the size of the land, character of the suburb and the medium-density zoning.
    3. There is insufficient parking to accommodate the proposed extra commercial space plus visitors to people living in the new dwellings. The development should provide for additional parking to support the additional parking demand it will create.
    4. Local roads are already operating at capacity. The amended development application does not adequately provide for the increase in vehicle and pedestrian traffic that will result because of the additional residents and commercial activities. Failure to adequately address traffic impacts will result in a neighbourhood centre that is unsafe and congested, and will greatly reduce the efficiency and liveability of Whitebridge and surrounding suburbs including Dudley and Redhead. The development application should adequately address traffic impacts to ensure vehicle safety, pedestrian safety, and traffic flow are maintained.
    5. The development should reflect the principles of ecologically sustainable design.
    Thank you for your consideration. I trust these issues will be addressed so the final development design will enhance the Sustainability, Equity, Efficiency and Liveability of Whitebridge, rather than detract from it.
    Yours faithfully
    Scott Henderson

  202. Michele henderson commented

    Dear Development Assessment Officer and JRPP
    Submission regarding Amended Development Application DA/1774/2013 at 142 Dudley Road, WHITEBRIDGE NSW 2290
    I’m not opposed to development on the site, but ask the amended development application is modified so it is consistent with the culture, values and needs of our community, and supports the core values of Lake Macquarie’s Lifestyle 2030 Strategy.
    In particular, we ask the following issues with the proposed amended development application be addressed before the application is approved:
    1. Whitebridge is a two-storey suburb. The proposed four-storey buildings (with underground carpark) is unprecedented and too high. Buildings of this height will have adverse impact on the character and culture of our suburb and community. The design elements do not enhance the amenity of the area. There are significant shadowing issues which have not been addressed. The development should have a height limit of two stories. Design elements should be improved. Shadowing issues should be addressed.
    2. The proposed development is too dense. The number of dwellings should be reduced to approximately 60, which is reasonable given the size of the land, character of the suburb and the medium-density zoning.
    3. There is insufficient parking to accommodate the proposed extra commercial space plus visitors to people living in the new dwellings. The development should provide for additional parking to support the additional parking demand it will create.
    4. Local roads are already operating at capacity. The amended development application does not adequately provide for the increase in vehicle and pedestrian traffic that will result because of the additional residents and commercial activities. Failure to adequately address traffic impacts will result in a neighbourhood centre that is unsafe and congested, and will greatly reduce the efficiency and liveability of Whitebridge and surrounding suburbs including Dudley and Redhead. The development application should adequately address traffic impacts to ensure vehicle safety, pedestrian safety, and traffic flow are maintained.
    5. The development should reflect the principles of ecologically sustainable design.
    Thank you for your consideration. I trust these issues will be addressed so the final development design will enhance the Sustainability, Equity, Efficiency and Liveability of Whitebridge, rather than detract from it.
    Yours faithfully
    Michele Henderson

  203. Lisa Suprano commented

    DA 1774/2013 – Development of Dudley Road/Kopa Street

    I strongly oppose the proposed development of Dudley Road and Kopa Street.

    I often walk to the shops or park with my friend and our children from Station Street. I am concerned about the safety of walking around Whitebridge with children in the event of an addition of 91 dwellings and their cars in the centre of the neighbourhood.

    I am also concerned about the traffic congestion that will occur. There will also be a dramatic increase in the number of pedestrians using the walkways and crossings, which will slow down the movement of traffic past the shops. The roads are already barely coping when considering the amount of movement around the suburb related to the shops, park, tennis court, oval, 2 preschools, highschool and general traffic passing through on the way to Dudley and Redhead.

    This development is not in keeping with the current character of Whitebridge. Whitebridge is a neighbourhood with a village-like atmosphere. A 91 unit, 3 to 4 storey development is totally out of character for this area. It will impact negatively on the atmosphere of the neighbourhood.

    The proposed development will look out of place in a neighbourhood where most dwellings are single-storey houses. Although it is inevitable that the area will increase in density over time given the zoning applied, to attempt to grow so drastically, all on one piece of land, in the heart of the neighbourhood, is inappropriate growth and will have devastating consequences for the suburb.

    The developement is also too close to the Fernleigh Track and will ruin the current tranquil experience of using the track. Also of concern is the developer's lack of regard for the Environmental Corridor which should remain undisturbed.

    The deciding body must act responsibly with a view to securing a positive future for the suburb.

    Lisa Suprano

  204. Brett Suprano commented

    I wish to express my opposition to the development on Dudley Road, Whitebridge DA 1774/2013.
    The developer has failed to address the issues that are of huge concern.

    The land was intended for 40-50 dwellings, which is still much more dense than the rest of Whitebridge, but which could still blend in with the suburb which should be the intention of any new development. The proposed number of 91 dwellings is mass over-development.

    Four storeys along Dudley Road demonstrates a lack of regard not only for community concerns, but also for council planning guidelines. The intended maximum number of storeys for a neighbourhood centre is HALF this.

    It is inappropriate and irresponsible to use the environmental corridor as a pathway from the Track to Dudley Road.

    Council’s Lifestyle 2020 and 2030 documents reflect the fact that urban consolidation is desirable, but there was surely no intention that it be achieved in such a drastic, thoughtless and inappropriate manner.

    It was once fortunate for Whitebridge that a large parcel of undeveloped land existed, as the possibilities were exciting – now it is extremely unfortunate as it could mean the destruction of the suburb as we know it.

    Brett Suprano

  205. Niclas Hakansson commented

    Re: DA/1774/2013

    I wish to object to the development proposal 1774/2013. Although the developers have redesigned the development, they have ignored the biggest and most concerning issues, those being:
    • the negative social impact this type of development will have on a residential suburb;
    • the traffic and safety problems that will arise;
    • the disregard for negative environmental impact and;
    • the inappropriateness of the size and density of the development.

    Negative Social Impact:
    The fact that this development will not sit harmoniously with the existing suburb will create an ’us’ and 'them’ mentality which is inducive to crime. It will negatively impact upon the community-minded spirit of the neighbourhood. The pleasant, neighbourly atmosphere of this suburb will be destroyed. One development should not be allowed to negatively impact so many people. Whitebridge is a Neighbourhood Centre, according to the LMCC, so why is a development which follows guidelines for a Regional Centre
    being applied to Whitebridge? The local character of Whitebridge, which has existed
    over many generations, would be tragically changed forever. Whilst this land should and
    must be developed, current residents must not be subjected to such a mutation of their neighbourhood in order to satisfy the aspirations of a commercial developer. Additionally,
    future residents of new housing in Whitebridge should enjoy a feeling of belonging to and fusing with the community, rather than feeling detached due to such an obvious discordance in their living arrangements.

    The suggestion that 92 dwellings is appropriate on this piece of land is ludicrous, as is 3-4 storeys in a suburb of free-standing houses. The visual monstrosity will not be the only problem - higher density living is associated with negative social outcomes. It decreases social interaction of residents and detracts from a sense of community. Our suburbs should be nurtured if we are to further increase our quality of living and the desirability of our Local Government Area. The design report from the developer states, "The secondary dwellings will allow additional rental affordability." (page C:02) This implies the development is aimed as investment properties. This mismatch of demographics will also contribute toward changing the character of the suburb which is 81% owner occupied. When considering this new housing is all on one block, it is glaringly obvious that there is a mismatch with the current character of the suburb.

    Traffic and Safety Problems:
    Lonus Avenue is already at capacity during peak school times and to add an additional, say, 200 cars to this equation, coming in and out of Kopa St, onto Lonus, would be disastrous. The roundabout also already experiences traffic congestion at these times. The safety of pedestrians is at risk if this development is to go ahead. Families with prams accessing the park, Birral ee Daycare Centre, and Whitebridge Preschool on
    Tumpoa Street, school children walking to and from Whitebridge High and the general public accessing shops and facilities will be placed in a daunting position of navigating overly-busy roads and crossings. This is not the spirit of a ’Neighbourhood Centre’.
    It appears the developers are quite aware of this problem as they have obviously attempted to down-play the traffic situation in their report and have not appropriately addressed the characteristics of the area, that being a high pedestrian/cyclist zone. Additionally, the traffic survey took place on one afternoon only. There are no provisions for improved roads and/or traffic conditions in this application.

    Parking is also already a problem in Whitebridge, with cars parked along Dudley Road for people to access the shops and cafes. This impacts upon visibility for pedestrians and motorists. The 20 ’new’ carparks being offered by the developer are not technically ’new’ as the area being assigned to this is currently used to capacity as overflow parking from the formal carpark on Dudley Rd. It is inevitable that there will also be parking overflow from the development itself, considering the parking assigned in the DA is realistically not adequate for the number of dwellings.

    Negative Environmental Impact:
    I am very concerned about how arrangements for stormwater will impact upon the Fernleigh Track. The calculations appear flawed and the Track is in danger
    of being impacted during any periods of heavy rain. The 7(2) land should also remain independent from any use by the development.

    Safety and Traffic Problems:
    A single entry/exit point, that being Kopa Street, for 92 dwellings will clearly cause tremendous changes in traffic conditions not only in Kopa Street, but on Lonus Avenue, and the roundabout via which most drivers access Lonus Avenue. The adjacent park, which is used regularly, the tennis courts and the oval will become much less-pleasant places to frequent. This will break down community ties. The traffic along Lonus Avenue will also put families of the Birralee Long Day Care Centre at risk. Students accessing
    Whitebridge High School by foot along Lonus will be placed in greater danger, and families accessing Whitebridge Preschool in Tumpoa Street will be negatively affected. It
    is already difficult and sometimes dangerous for buses using Lonus Ave to access the high school.

    Conclusion:
    The way this piece of land is to be developed needs to be considered with much greater regard for both current and future residents of the area. If the development goes ahead in its current form, a disastrous precedent will be set for more of our suburbs to be developed in a similarly mindless and careless fashion.

    Niclas Hakansson

  206. Kylie Pheils commented

    I object to the development on Dudley Rd Whitebridge, DA 1774/2013.

    The height along Dudley Rd of 16 metres, 4-storeys, is entirely in opposition to the village atmosphere of Whitebridge, not to mention being well above the height limits as stipulated by LMCC. It will lessen the experience of shopping and frequenting the cafés on the shopping strip.

    The number of dwellings is entirely too high and indicates an opportunistic attitude on behalf of the developer. LMCC indicated the land was appropriate for 40-50 dwellings (even less considering that took into account land on the other side of Kopa Street) and the community agrees with this figure as being appropriate.

    Using the environmental corridor to achieve permeability of the site is a perfect example of the lack of good intention on the part of the developer.

    This development must be suitable for the area and enhance the suburb. Currently, Whitebridge is at risk of becoming a suburb of social unrest and discontent.

    To allow this development to go ahead would be irresponsible and would demonstrate that our council and decision makers are not responding to the community, but only to the developer's commercial interests as it is certainly not in the interests of the suburb of Whitebridge.

    Kylie Pheils

  207. Drew and Heather Harper commented

    I do not approve of the development as the roads are to congested now and no thought has been put in for future infrastructure.
    There will be too many people in that development which will mean too many cars adding more congestion to a already overgrown suburb.
    The area should be made into parkland for the people who use the fernleigh track as a rest spot with toilet facilities.

  208. Natalie Moore commented

    Wake up to yourself LMCC! A development of this size, at the proposed site or anywhere in Whitebridge for that matter is not suitable for this community.
    As many people have already mentioned, parking and general traffic at Whitebridge shops and along surrounding roads is already a joke. You need to rectify the current issues before you approve a monstrosity such as this development.

  209. Douglas Kolisnyk commented

    Doug Kolisnyk
    10 Hudson Street
    Whitebridge 2290
    07/04/2015
    Lake Macquarie City Council
    The General Manager
    PO Box 1906
    Hunter Region Mail Centre 2310

    Dear Sir/Ma’am,
    Re: DA number:1774/2013
    Address: 142-146 Dudley Rd and 2-4 Kopa St, Whitebridge, 2290
    Applicant’s name: SNL Building Constructions Pty Ltd

    I have been a resident of Whitebridge for 25 years, I wish to register my opposition to the proposed development at 142-146 Dudley Rd and 2-4 Kopa St, Whitebridge.

    I have referred to the proposal’s Visual Impact Assessment (VIA), MSB-Conditional Approval, SNL’s DA Documents. REFERRAL RESPONSE IP – Strategic Planning.

    My concerns regarding this development are stated in my previous submissions. The following addendum highlights further concerns:

    SOCIAL IMPACT:

    The East Lake Intensification Corridor illustrated in a schematic map in the Lifestyle 2030 document shows the corridor along the highway from Charlestown to Belmont. Whitebridge is on the periphery of the zone. Council state there is no detailed map of the Zone which SNL greatly rely on in their final version of this DA. Therefore SNL’s use of this zone should be reinvestigated or dismissed.

    The existing infrastructure (roads, car parking, pre-schools) are at capacity and will not cope easily with the sudden increase in population and traffic. The suburb is poorly serviced by Government buses. People will need to travel to Charlestown for many services including banking, the post office. Charlestown is more than a 10 minute walk from this site.

    Integrated Planning advise that the proposed density is 42 dwelling per hectare and this is higher than that suggested as reasonable (30-40) for the regional centre of Charlestown. It should be possible to increase the supply of housing in the area by developing this site without excessive development. The lengthy planning process which has occurred could have been avoided if the initial proposal was more compatible with the surrounding area and sensitive to the adjacent environmental corridor.
    There are also many inconsistencies with Lifestyle 2030 which have been outlined in detail in previous submissions.

    SNL’s table which “identifies development applications that were reviewed when informing the design process”. (Ref. SNL letter to LMCC, 23rd February, 2015)

    The examples provided by SNL support our argument that the proposal is totally inconsistent with the emerging character of the area, and therefore out of character even with the so-called “desired future” of Whitebridge.
    This proposal, with a net density of 54 dwellings per hectare, as stated on the architectural plans, is a massive overdevelopment of the site, and it does not fit with the existing character of the area or the desired future. The other recent developments referred to by SNL achieve the objective of increasing density in the area without having a devastating visual impact. (Ref LMCC Scenic Management Guidelines). They have not become the “dominant feature of the scene”, even those with a density over 40 dwellings per hectare, as shown in the table. The proponent should be required to comply with LMCC legislative and procedural guidelines.

    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

    The Community is entitled to ask why the DA has abused the area set aside for conservation and obviously part of the reason is that the proposed density of the development means that given the area of the site that is to be covered with buildings, roadways, paved surfaces is excessive it is essential to at least give token recognition that drainage and storm water issues need to be addressed. The DA demonstrates that the proposal has zero respect for the original rezoning reservations and this in turn may have ultimately devastating consequences for the Fernleigh Track (significant heritage, and community leisure/ transport resource) and the entire strip of conservation zoned lands adjoining the Track right down to the local government boundaries of Lake Macquarie and Newcastle.

    Encroachment of the proposed development on the adjoining conservation zoned land is in direct contravention of State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP19) that legislates that the purpose of Conservation zoning is protect plant and animal communities, wild life corridors and habitat. Many of the Community submissions in relation to the first two versions of this DA have indicated the vital importance of this particular parcel in contributing to that objective. It has been ignored by the Applicant in each revision and ultimately abused by the encroachment intended to facilitate development beyond that which is acceptable to the Community.
    The 20m wide conservation zone, as well as having pathways, stormwater basins and some
    limited planting of native trees, also has almost half of the road width of Street C, and its
    kerbside parking within this zone. The effective width of this 20m conservation zone, left for
    planting of native trees is reduced to 6-8m.

    DESIGN:

    Landcom define medium density as 20-40 dw/ha net, LS2030 use an example of 30-40
    dwellings per hectare as being appropriate for the regional centre of Charlestown.
    The density of this development is 45 dw/ha net. This puts the development in the high
    density range which is totally inappropriate. The “terrace-style townhouses along Kopa St” and through the rest of the site (Lots 2, 3, 4&1) are in fact classed as residential flat buildings, as such they should have been assessed under SEPP65.

    The proposed development on Dudley Rd, is actually one building with two sections linked by a partially underground car park. The portion of the car park linking the two sections is partially above ground. Therefore the “two buildings” are in fact one. This is a misleading fabrication by SNL which contravenes MSB requirement of building mass being less than 40 m in total length when in fact it’s double this amount.

    The “existing power poles on the opposite side of Dudley Road (estimated to be approximately 12m high)” are 10.5m, 11.2 and 11.8m. The new building is 14m high, a difference of over 2m, so is a full storey over the height of the shortest pole. The “existing two storey shops also on the opposite side of Dudley Road” are 7.6 and 8m high (2 storeys). The proposed buildings are 6 metres higher, a full 2 storeys higher not “an estimated 3m”. The “existing Whitebridge Cellars building is approximately 6m high”, this is the only correct reference point given, when measured to the top of the parapet. The flag poles do not add to perceived height. The LEP Dictionary specifically excludes the use of flagpoles when measuring the height of a building (pg. 59). The proposed building is a full 3 storeys higher, and 8m higher than the top of the parapet, not “5m”. As stated in the VIA, it is “immediately next to Whitebridge Cellars”, and this would accentuate the sizable height difference. The height of the existing Camphor Laurel tree is not given, but has been measured at 10m. The building would be 4m higher, not the stated “2m higher”. Therefore Section 4.2 highlights how the VIA relies on incorrect, approximate estimates. This then makes all observations and statements based on them questionable.

    Several of the artist’s impressions in SNL’s VIA are flawed, as the proposed buildings are obviously not to scale, or in some cases these impressions are not provided from certain important viewpoints.

    TRAFFIC IMPACT:

    We understand that the developer, SNL, greatly relies on this unrefined interpretation (East Lake Intensification Corridor) of the map in their final version of this DA. When read in conjunction with maps for Movement Systems it is noted that there is no major road network supporting intensification. Since the abandonment of the East Charlestown Bypass and the axing of discussion related to the extension of Waran Rd, there has been no strategic intent offered to suggest how to strengthen the road system to deal with intensification in this immediate area. Predictions that the roundabout at the intersection of Dudley Rd, Bulls Garden Rd, Lonus Ave and Waran Rd will fail in the near future if predicted growth occurs will only be exacerbated if medium density rates in Neighbourhood Centres with little elasticity and no capacity for extending infrastructure have this level of density imposed on them.

    Existing infrastructure such as roads, car parking, pre-schools are at capacity and will not cope efficiently with the sudden and concentrated increase in population and traffic, despite assurances to the contrary provided by the developer. The suburb is poorly serviced by Government buses and no anticipated change in service has been suggested. People will need to travel to Charlestown for many services including banking, the post office, medical specialists etc. Charlestown the nearest transport hub is at least a 30 minute walk from this site.

    Conclusion:

    I respectfully request, that both Council and the JRPP reject the application as offered and suggest a significant downsizing of the proposal to accord with the initial projection of 40 dwellings at the time this land was rezoned. Integrate the development into the community and scale back to a density which can be accommodated into the environment and supporting infrastructures of our neighbourhood centre. I further suggest the need for integrity and quality in the design of the development and the reinstatement of permeability through the site to maintain the historic and public interest in this land.

  210. Aaron porter commented

    This development does not seem to take into account the fact that traffic along dudley road will often be at a standstill as it has since the fences were installed, parking for the shops is often full and I line to enter the car park around the roundabout. I feel this would also be a problem for any emergency services using dudley road in peak times. I also have concerns about the density of the housing and lack of parking for occupants in the development

  211. Natalie Van Dyck commented

    To the General Manager,

    I am voicing my concern over this proposed development on Dudley Road. I am a home owner of Whitebridge.

    I am most concerned about social impact of such a dense development. I understand the need for more housing but do not want to see so many units and high units in one spot. When buying in this area we did so because of the small housing developments and independent houses definitely not mass housing.

    This land has long been used for recreation and the edges have been used for parking at Whitebridge shops. More parking is needed here not less.

    The traffic congestion is a particular problem around the roundabout and shops and is risky as you walk, ride or drive in this area.

    Thank you for listening to concerns.

    Mrs Natalie Van Dyck

  212. Chelsey Zuiderwyk commented

    I am the Chairperson of the Greater Charlestown Sustainable Neighbourhood Group and I enter this submission on behalf of our group.

    The Greater Charlestown Sustainable Neighbourhood Group is an initiative of Lake Macquarie City Council and is run by volunteers in the community.

    As part of the formation of our group in 2014, a Sustainable Neighbourhood Action Plan was developed, which represents the goals and visions of the Greater Charlestown Community. There are five key objectives of this Action Plan¸ which the development of 142 Dudley Rd Whitebridge is at odds with:

    1 - Strong community spirit; the development in its previous and current form has been strongly opposed by the local community. The Greater Charlestown SNG urges the Joint Regional Planning Panel to consider the concerns of the community which have united in requesting a more sustainable and better designed development for the area. Our community has a strong community spirit that enhances the wellbeing of our community, and we would like this voice to be listened to and consulted.

    2 - Abundant healthy natural environment; the area to be developed currently provides a biodiversity corridor along Fernleigh track, which needs to be widened, not narrowed. This habitat corridor links Glenrock State Conservation Area, Awabakal Nature Reserve and Lake Macquarie Wetlands. This connection is vital to the ecological health of our remnant bushlands. We strongly request that when this land is developed, provision is made to widen the existing biodiversity corridor adjacent to Fernleigh track.

    3 - Well designed and used community infrastructure; the lack of infrastructure initiatives put forward in the proposal will lead to congested traffic conditions, parking restrictions, and a multitude of other hazards for pedestrians and the vast number of cyclists that access Fernleigh Track. We request that these considerations form an essential part of the development, so the development will be beneficial to our community.

    4 - Leading local sustainability initiatives and practices; the plan in its current form offers no initiatives in the way of sustainability best practice. We request that there are changes made to building design and layout to incorporate sustainability best practise knowledge.

    5 - Distinctive village feel; if approved in its current form, the distinctive village feel of both Whitebridge and neighbouring suburbs namely Kahibah and Dudley is at risk. The high rise and high density nature is not in keeping with the prized village feel that our community is proud of. We request that the development improves the central village feel of Whitebridge shops and does not detract from it.

    The proposed development of 142 Dudley Road Whitebridge requires a considerable amount of redesign before it can be considered a benefit to the community, or a sustainable initiative. We do not support the development in its current form and request that those reviewing the application take on board the concerns of The Greater Charlestown Sustainable Neighbourhood Group and consult our Sustainable Neighbourhood Action Plan to better understand the local community’s priorities and goals for our local area.

    Thank you

  213. Greg Boundy commented

    21 Railway Street
    Dudley, 2290
    07/04/2015

    Lake Macquarie City Council
    The General Manager
    PO Box 1906
    Hunter Region Mail Centre,2310

    Greg Boundy

    I am a resident of Dudley and have many concerns about the development proposed for 142-146 Dudley Road & 2-4 Kopa Street, Whitebridge,2290.DA No. 1774/2013

    As most of my previous concerns in my last two submissions, which are still relevant, have not been addressed, there is no need to go over them again. The following concerns are additional:

    TRAFFIC

    As there are no indications of any road upgrades to the current road system i fail to see how the gridlock situation will get better! Council’s response seems to bolster SNL’s study, how is this so? Why wasnt an independant study performed?

    There might be 3 more commercial shops along Dudley Rd. Will this ease congestion? Parking on Dudley Rd is already difficult. There is the potential for hundreds of extra cars generated from this DA. I find this totally unacceptable.
    The obvious outcome of this is increased danger to cyclists, road users and pedestrians.

    SNL do not take the knowledge of the residents on board nor do they take into account the nature of the area, preschool, shops, church, services and an increasing pedestrian/cycle zone.

    The increased traffic will also generate more fine particulate and Co2 during construction and in the future, again not acceptable. Go back to the drawing board.

    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

    Changes to the environmental zone now include an encroachment by over 6m of a road carriageway, footpath and 3 stormwater basins. The green corridor between Glenrock State Park and adjoining bushland will be severely depleted when building is allowed in this zone. The residential zone should have these facilities not the environmental zone, which is also an asset protection zone for bush fires protection which means limited planting of flora in this area, further compounding the regeneration issues.

    This new proposal ignores the ecological importance of the green corridor connecting Glenrock State Consevation Area and the Awabakal Nature Reserve.

    Issues regarding storm water runoff onto Fernleigh Track and the potential for degredation of the Glenrock watershed have not been fully addressed, not good enough!

    SOCIAL IMPACT

    SNL’s mandate seems to be one of total disregard for the community in large, so much for ’community consultation’. Their remark of the proposal ’being consistent with the emerging character of Whitebridge’ is utter nonsense and spin generated by underlings doing the bidding of magnates. The majority of residents have no desire for ’their’ vision of the future. Density issues are the problem here. Size of the estate is inconsistent withe the surrounding area and doesn’t maintain the residential amenity.The site should have no more than 40 dwellings as stated in LEP 2004 Draft Amendment 53.

    BUILDING DESIGN

    With the developement being staged over 2-3 yrs this will only contribute to increased noise levels, traffic congestion and possibly pollution from construction runoff.

    After reading SNL report their comment ” we will get used to the buildings and the trees will eventually camouflage them” is a ludicrous patronizing statement and unacceptable.

    In SNL’s VIA they’ve shown trees along Dudley Rd. That A) are too high B)don’t exist on the landscape plan C) positioned in parking areas!! This makes a complete mockery of their assertions. SNL’s own remarks state
    ” There are four viewpoints where the impact has been assessed as severe”. Their proposed 2-4 storey bulky and imposing structures will be devestating from most views. This again is not WORLD CLASS DESIGN , only a developer wishing to Maximize his Yield.

    There will also be a private driveway built at the end of Kopa St. For Unit 23! What happens to the residence’s on the north side of Kopa St if they need a road entrance in the future? Why should the developer get preliminary say when it involves a public throughfare? Seems money talks!

    This ’Developement ’ should it go ahead will undoubtedly set a precedent in similar zoned areas which is not the desired future that the majority of residents want. The density of 91 dwellings and 3 commercial units is not consistent with the LEP 2014 planning at the time of rezoning. Whilst development is desirable and inevitable, it must be appropriate and sustainable development that contributes to, not detracts from, our neighbourhoods.

    Council must consider not only the residents of Whitebridge, but also the residents of the greater area who will be negatively affected if the development goes ahead in its proposed form. I urge the Council and JRPP to use common sense in their approach and ask the Developement be redesigned to 40 dwellings.

    Thank You.

  214. Brenda Carter commented

    To the General Manager, LMCC

    I live in Charlestown East, having moved here from Whitebridge.

    I am frustrated that the latest DA for the Kopa Street development only compounds the objections raised to the earlier applications with added units and added storeys.

    The proposal was inappropriate then - it is worse now. All the previous concerns about surface permeability, storm water runoff, mining subsidence, traffic, parking, and social issues still apply.

  215. Maree Turner commented

    Again, we are writing proposals over original issues that have not been addressed. Of course I still have the same concerns regarding this development with the major threats of citizen safety, traffic congestion, green space and utility overload.
    Since my last proposal, my son has started attending Whitebridge Preschool on Tumpoa Street. We walk to preschool twice a week and have great difficulty crossing the road where Lonus Avenue and Kopa Street meet. We often have to walk down to the roundabout near the Whitebridge shops just to get across the road. I often see Whitebridge High students rushing across the road and dodging between cars to cross the road. All while I am trying to teach my children how to cross the road safely. This area cannot handle further traffic congestion.

    As a mother of two children under the age of five, we are regularly outdoors walking/cycling to the shops, on the Fernleigh track and to other community facilities such as netball courts and parks. With an increase of at least 300 citizens and an anticipated 150 or more vehicles, I feel that my current concern for safety on the roads will only increase.
    We are also a family that uses only one vehicle and we do rely on public transport. I don’t feel that the already basic public transport service could support this sort of community increase. Public transport would need to improve dramatically for people to consider using it to commute to and from work.

    Again I would like to state: I do support development of some kind on the site, and an increase to the existing harmonious community of Whitebridge. It is a beautiful community that I hope to live in for many years, raising my young family safely. While not solving the existing traffic, utility and safety issues, a smaller, less dense development with a reduction in scope would better suit the site and broader community. If the development were to proceed in its proposed form, without significant improvement to existing road, services, utilities, pedestrian infrastructure and environmental support, I fear for the future of our community and the safety of residents and visitors.

  216. Philip Carter commented

    Greetings,

    I am a Charlestown resident and I frequent Whitebridge almost daily.

    I formerly lived in Whitebridge, my sons attended the local high school, and I am intimately acquainted with its natural, social and built environment. As such, I find the over-development proposed for these Kopa Cabanas is utterly inappropriate. Further, the revised submissions either, have not addressed the chief concerns raised originally, or have compounded them (as with added sites and storeys).

    The chief concern has always been the housing density, which would be more than twice council guidelines. This concern literally flows over into concerns about loss of surface permeability and storm water runoff. Corollary concerns include traffic, parking and infrastructure.

    Further, the over-development would degrade the area’s ecological corridor; present an aesthetic eyesore; and adversely impact on the community of what is virtually a village.

  217. Dr John Clulow commented

    Submission from:
    Dr John Clulow
    Senior Lecturer, Environmental & Conservation Biology,
    University of Newcastle
    Date: 10 April, 2015

    Re:
    Referral Response: Development – Flora/Fauna
    Application: DA/1774/2013 Date: 16/2/2015

    To:
    General Manager,
    Lake Macquarie City Council
    Email: council@lakemac.nsw.gov.au
    Copied to: www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/364483

    Environmental Impact: Failure to consider impact of the development on a threatened species, the squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis).

    I wish to make the following comments in response to the Flora & Fauna Referral Response (V Owen, 16/2/2015) relating to DA/1774/2013:

    (1) In the absence of ecological data to the contrary, the precautionary principle requires that the Fernleigh Track from immediately south of Dudley Road to immediately north of Burwood Rd should be considered to constitute a significant corridor for the movement of the threatened squirrel glider, Petaurus norfolcensis (vulnerable species, NSW TSC Act, 1995) from between the two large forest forest patches of Glenrock SCA and Jewells/Awabakal SCA. Recent field surveys by myself with students from the University of Newcastle have generated two records (Glenrock, 2014; Awabakal, 2015) in Glenrock SCA and Awabakal Reserve indicating that both areas currently support squirrel gliders, although the size and extent of the populations remain uncertain.

    (2) As noted in a previous submission (Clulow, 2014; copy attached), both of these systems constitute large forest remnants with extensive potential squirrel glider habitat, of local and regional significance to the conservation of the squirrel glider because of their contribution to the larger, connected area of metahabitat (multiple, connected forest patches) that runs east of the Pacific Highway from Belmont Wetlands to Glenrock SCA.

    (3) As such (due to (2)), maintenance of effective connectivity for squirrel gliders along the Fernleigh Track is a matter of high significance to the conservation of squirrel gliders at a local and regional scale.

    (4) There is a major bottleneck to the Fernleigh Track at Whitebridge which is due to the presence of Dudley Road and its bridge over the Fernleigh Track and the narrow width, and sparse distribution of trees in the vegetation corridor along the Fernleigh Track adjacent to the Kopa St development site. This bottleneck and the gaps across Dudley Rd threaten the functionality for squirrel gliders of the Fernleigh Track corridor at Whitebridge.

    (5) The compromised and disrupted corridor system at Whitebridge requires restoration and rehabilitation. The Kopa St development, as currently proposed (and supported in the Referral Response) will limit the potential for restoration of the squirrel glider wildlife corridor at Whitebridge to a viable corridor link likely to be used effectively by squirrel gliders. As proposed, the development sterilises the site in terms of its potential to be a part of a restored wildlife corridor. It is for this reason that I consider the development proposal should trigger the requirement for an SIS after application of the Seven Part Test. I do not believe that the LMCC Flora & Fauna Referral Response has given this point due consideration. In fact, the Referral Response appears to have overlooked guidelines for decision making with respect to squirrel glider habitat and corridors as outlined in LMCC’s own documentation (Fallding and Smith, 2008) eg recognition that an SIS should be prepared where a movement corridor is to be impacted by a development (Fallding & Smith, 2008; Table 11), and a recognition that target corridor widths should be in the order of 100-150 m in width to be self-sustaining (Fallding & Smith, 2008; pp. 32-33).

    (6) I strongly disagree with a number of the Flora and Fauna comments made in the Referral Response. These include:
    (i) Referral Response Statement: “The building envelopes and associated APZs are contained within the site and do not encroach on the vegetation associated with the adjacent Fernleigh Track. As indicated in previous flora and fauna advice, the proposed APZs are within the E2 zone on the site, however this is justified as this area is cleared and will be landscaped with appropriate native species to compliment and consolidate the existing Fernleigh Track corridor”. My response: it is apparent that the widening of the internal road from 6 to 8 m, and the encroachment of the development APZs into the E2 conservation zone (which will require a removal or restriction of native forest vegetation within the conservation zone), as well as encroachment of storm water drainage into the E2 conservation zone will degrade the value and function of the conservation zone. This is unacceptable, given that it is within Council’s capacity under existing environmental (E2) zoning to prevent this occurring.
    (ii) Referral Response Statement: “The addendum ecological advice presented by RPS (2014) is supported:
    o The site does not contain significant habitat attributes and no threatened species, populations or ecological communities listed under the TSC Act or EPBC Act are likely to occur.
    o The revised Landscape Master Plan will improve ecological function of the faunal movement corridor identified under the LMCC Native Vegetation and Corridors Mapping.
    o The development is unlikely to have a significant impact on threatened species, populations or ecological communities listed under the TSC Act or EPBC Act known from the locality.”

    My response: I disagree strongly with the three dot-points in this statement.
    Dot point 1. The site does contain significant habitat attributes for a threatened species by virtue of its location as an important landscape element within a significant wildlife corridor of high local and regional conservation significance for squirrel gliders, a listed threatened species. The fact that the site is substantially deforested at the moment in no way reduces the significance of the site for the conservation of the squirrel glider. Development of the site as currently proposed, on the other hand, will permanently sterilise its conservation value, and impact on a local and regional population of a threatened species, and potentially contribute in the long term to the extinction of that population.
    Dot point 2. I see no evidence that the Landscape Master Plan will improve ecological function of the faunal movement corridor existing along the Fernleigh Track at this location
    Dot point 3. In my view, the development is likely to have a significant impact on a threatened species listed under the TSC ACT that is known from the locality (for the reason outlined in Dot Point 1 response).

    (7) In my view, an SIS should be required for the proposed development at Kopa St. This should include an extensive survey of squirrel glider habitat and the squirrel glider population occurring in the Glenrock-Jewells/Awabakal metahabitat system. The SIS should also include supporting studies that determine whether the Fernleigh Track is currently functionally effective as a corridor system for squirrel gliders, and determine to what extent part or parts of the development site should be set aside to allow for rehabilitation and restoration of the corridor for squirrel gliders at Whitebridge.

    References

    Clulow, J (9 Feb, 2014). Maintenance of a critical habitat corridor for the threatened squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis) between Glenrock State Conservation Area and the Awabakal State Conservation Area/Jewells Wetland systems. Submission to LMCC in regard to DA 1774/2013, 142-146 Dudley Rd & 2-4 Kopa St, Dudley (Applicant SNL Building Constructions).

    Fallding, M P & Smith, A P (2008) Squirrel Glider review for Morisset Structure Plan area, Lake Macquarie City Council.

  218. Carmen Kolisnyk commented

    07th April, 2015 Carmen Kolisnyk
    10 Hudson Street,
    Whitebridge, NSW, 2290

    The General Manager,
    Lake Macquarie City Council,
    PO Box 1906
    Hunter Region Mail Centre
    NSW 2310.

    Re: DA 1774/2013
    Address: 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street, Whitebridge. NSW 2290.
    Applicant's Name: SNL Building Constructions Pty. Ltd.
    Sir/Madam,

    In reference to the above application I would like to voice my deep concerns in regards to the amended development of this site. I strongly object to this over development by SNL.

    As most of my previous concerns in my last two submissions, which are still relevant, have not been addressed, there is no need to go over them again. The following concerns are in addendum:
    TRAFFIC IMPACT

    No plans for any road upgrades to the current road system indicates an increase in the gridlock situation our area is feeling now! Will it get better!? I doubt it! Council’s response seems to indicate a reluctance to listen to the broader community. An independent study needs to be performed.
    There might be 3 more commercial shops along Dudley Rd. Will this ease congestion? Parking on Dudley Rd is already dangerous at intermittent times. There is the potential for hundreds of extra cars generated from this DA and the obvious outcome of this is increased danger to cyclists, road users and pedestrians. This is avoidable and inexcusable.
    ‘Community consultation’ by SNL do not take into account local knowledge of the residents nor do they take into account the existing nature of the area, preschool, shops, church, services and an increasing pedestrian/cycle zone.

    SOCIAL IMPACT

    IP, Integrated Planning, advise that the proposed density is 42 dwelling per hectare and this is higher than that suggested (30-40) for the regional centre of Charlestown. Whitebridge has one of the highest rates of Development in Lake Macquarie now. If the initial proposal was more appropriate with the surrounding area it should be possible to increase the supply of housing in the area by developing this site without excessive development.
    This ’Development’ if accepted will undoubtedly create a precedent in similar zoned areas which is not what the majority of residents want. A density, of 91 dwellings and 3 commercial units is not consistent with the LEP 2014 planning at the time of rezoning, which stated an approx. max. of 40 dwellings for the site. As it stands the development is undesirable and inappropriate/unsustainable. It detracts rather than adds to our neighbourhood.
    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

    The environmental zone now has a road carriageway, footpath and stormwater basins designed into it. The encroachment into this zone decreases the green corridors ability to rejuvenate. The residential zone needs to be scaled back to a reasonable density.

    The amount of permeable land on the site has been drastically reduced and in the event of a 100 yr. storm surge or the like I would be greatly concerned with storm water discharge onto Fernleigh Track which has the potential to pollute and degrade the Glenrock watershed. With climate change upon us has this been taken into account?

    This is unacceptable at a Community level and is totally contrary to the intentions set forth in the rezoning at Amendment 53 and in the Objectives for this zone under the LEP.

    BUILDING DESIGN

    With the staging of the development a 2-3 yr. time limit is unacceptable and will lead to further noise aggravation and traffic chaos.

    The bulky and aggressive nature of the build design is unavoidable wherever you look. The 14m height along Dudley Rd is a travesty, SNL have exceeded the allowable distance by almost 3m.

    The private driveway off Kopa St for unit 23 leaves no room for additional am driveway on the north side of Kopa st under lot 3. How can this be justified?

    Progress is necessary for any community to advance and grow - but this ‘progress’ should
    never be at the expense of the existing community. I urge the LMCC and the JRPP to please uphold the communities needs and wishes, this is our life and community you’re playing with.

    Yours Sincerely
    Carmen Kolisnyk

  219. James Pheils commented

    I object to the development on Dudley Rd and Kopa Streets, Whitebridge.

    The same issues I have raised previously are still pertinent.

    The density is too high, the traffic implications very concerning and the 14metre height along Dudley Rd in conflict with LMCC's height restrictions. Safety of residents, students and shoppers must be an important consideration. As should the precedent that would be set by allowing this type of development to occur. Urban consolidation is inevitable and necessary but this is ill-thought out, opportunistic and of benefit only to the developer. It has potentially devastating consequences for the community.

    I urge the deciding body to enforce LMCC planning guidelines to ensure our suburbs are developed with integrity for the good of all.

  220. Ben Conroy commented

    Lake Macquarie City Council
    The General Manager
    PO Box 1906
    Hunter Region Mail Centre,2310

    The development of Dudley Road and Kopa Street is inappropriate for the suburb of Whitebridge.
    The density is too high and consistent with what would be called mass over-development.
    Four storeys is ridiculous in a suburb where nothing else is above 2 storeys. With such a big building proposed along Dudley Road of this height, it will be an eye-sore to see 4-storeys along the strip which currently enjoys a village-like vibe.
    This village-like vibe will be destroyed, which is such a shame, as it is developing into a funky, progressive, social meeting place for many local residents of Whitebridge and surrounding suburbs of Dudley, Redhead and Kahibah. This should be exactly what council wants! Not mass over-development.
    Urban consolidation is necessary but it must be done properly.
    The best of both worlds CAN be achieved.
    Council needs to take responsibility for ensuring that its suburbs are not destroyed by developers whose goal is to make profit. That is surely one of the most important reasons why council exists?!?!
    So, in summary, there are TOO MANY dwellings, the buildings are TOO HIGH and should be limited to 2 storey, the small road, Kopa Street, CANNOT COPE with all the extra traffic, nor can the rest of the infrastructure of Whitebridge, and it will look OUT OF PLACE.
    We trust our council to think reasonably and in the best interests of current and future residents.
    Thank you.
    Ben Conroy

  221. Renae Conroy commented

    I once again object to the development planned for Dudley Road/Kopa Street, Whitebridge.

    Traffic and safety remain paramount in the minds of residents, students and their families.

    Discordance with of the style of this development with its current surroundings will divide a community which currently enjoys a harmonious existence.

    4-storeys along Dudley Rd will provide an eyesore for motorists passing through on their way to Redhead and Dudley beaches, as well as detract from the lovely atmosphere of the shopping district.

    The environment corridor is in risk of being used as a public pathway, which is not what the community intended to happen when they asked for permeability through the site.

    Users of the Fernleigh Track may be disappointed with their experience once reaching this middle-point, due to the buildings being so close to the track.

    Storm water provisions appear inadequate and could also impact the Fernleigh Track.

    There exists more land in Whitebridge which will be used in a higher-density fashion in the future, given the new zoning. This should be taken into account.

    This is a great opportunity to show how urban consolidation can be achieved in the right way. Make a good example of Whitebridge. Don't allow Whitebridge to become an example of a lesson to be learnt.

    Renae Conroy

  222. Kimberley Broughton commented

    One can only wonder how on earth a development proposal that is against council regulations, protested strongly by the community and so obviously a money-grabbing venture on the part of opportunistic developers can progress so far as to be put before the JRPP for a decision to be made.
    Any arguments that this is 'urban consolidation' are simply not genuine.
    The proposed development undoubtedly will cause many more problems than what it offers as positive contributions (the latter of which are almost impossible to identify).
    These problems revolve around traffic congestion and parking problems on roads already at full capacity, dangers to pedestrians, an inevitable increase in crime, damage to social harmony, erosion of an environmental corridor, lack of adequate storm water provisions, aesthetic damage to the suburb and Ferleigh Track as a result of non-compliance with council's height limits and dwellings-per-hectare guidelines.
    I have not once, for the entire duration of this process from proposal till now, heard ANYONE (besides the developers) say that this is a positive approach to urban consolidation and a benefit to the community. There has been only negative responses to this development.
    Surely JRPP will easily see why.

    Kimberley Broughton

  223. Dean Broughton commented

    To whom it may concern

    I strongly oppose the development of the large parcel of land at Dudley Road and Lonus Avenue, Whitebridge.

    It is very clear to see that the proposed development will not fit in with the suburb. It is in the heart of the suburb which is currently developing such a growth in atmosphere and community spirit as a result of popular shops and cafes and visitors from the Fernleigh Track. The village atmopshere so desirable for our suburbs will be destroyed.

    Traffic problems will be the result of a sudden increase of 91 dwellings in the area. The local infrastructure will be unable to cope. The safety of residents and pedestrians will be compromised.

    I cannot understand how the developer can propose a development of 4 storeys when council guidelines stipulate 2 storeys is appropriate for a neighbourhood centre, which is adequate for a small suburb.

    The Fernleigh Track, which currently provides an 'escape into the bush' experience for Novocastrians will be disappointingly compromised by such a huge monstrosity of a development right next to it.

    Further, the developer using the environmental corridor to accommodate the permeability requirement of good 'safety by design' principles is outrageous. This developer time and time again has made decisions which appear to demonstrate their lack of social conscious and their self-serving interests.

    People are speaking loudly against this. Council and the JRPP must listen!

    Dean Broughton

  224. Adrian Allan commented

    Adrian Allan
    7Cindi Close
    Whitebridge, 2290

    To the General Manager,
    I wish to lodge my objection to the totally unsightly development proposed at 142 Dudley Rd Whitebridge.
    It. Seems these greedy developers have not listened to any of the concerns the majority of the residents have highlighted.
    The major issues I am concerned about are:-
    Traffic congestion in and around the shopping centre at current levels is barely tolerable.
    Stormwater run off, Fernleigh track at the moment cannot cope with heavy downpours , collecting run off from the proposed development site.
    Whitebridge is not a suburb conducive of this large scale development, it is a small township which can cope only with small aesthetically pleasing developments.
    Destruction of the green corridor between the Awabakal reserve at Redhead through to Glenrock SCA.
    The social impact of these high density developments does not have a good record wherever this type of development is located.
    I have lived in the Whitebridge / Dudley ares for 60 years and would be very disappointed if this type of development went ahead. You need to listen to the actual residents of the area not some blow in developer who only has $ on his mind, as it is not in his backyard.
    Regards
    Adrian Allan

  225. Michelle Curtis-Allan commented

    RE: DA 1774/2013

    Once again I am writing to you to strongly oppose the proposed current development application of 142 Dudley Whitebridge NSW 2290.

    I have no objection to development of the land however I have the following concerns regarding the current proposed development:

    - the density and height of the development is not in keeping with the surrounding single storey homes - too many and too high
    - only one entrance and exit - safety issues for access particularly for emergency vehicles
    - increased traffic congestion in and around the Whitebridge shops on Dudley Rd
    and the roundabout at Lonus Ave/Dudley Rd. Already highly congested areas and often difficult to find a car park
    -lack of car parking spaces in the development for residents and visitors
    -lack of "green areas" in the development and encroachment of the development into the "green corridor"
    -aesthetically it is one of the ugliest developments I have seen and looks like an overdeveloped concrete jungle with the potential to become a ghetto

    I am extremely disappointed that Lake Macquarie City Council has not addressed the numerous concerns of the residents within the Whitebridge community regarding this proposed development. As previously stated I have no objection to development of the land but would like to see a more medium density development on the site with considerably less units and more green areas. Rather than ugly concrete boxes I'm sure it is possible to build homes more in keeping with the surrounding homes which would create a more village like community.

  226. Rebecca Beveridge commented

    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

    I am writing to state my objection to the proposed Whitebridge development DA 1774/2013
    I am a resident of Whitebridge and will be a direct neighbour of this development.
    I would first like to point out that I am not ‘anti-development’ and if this development had been adequate I would not be voicing an objection. I have objected to previous stages of this same DA, however, not only have these objections not been addressed or improved they have, in some cases, been made worse.
    The following outlines my primary concerns,
    1. Density
    This is an over development of a suburban lot within a neighbourhood centre. I believe that most of my concerns, and indeed probably most of the concerns of those who are objecting, would be alleviated by a development of a lower density. High density living is suited to inner city or regional centres where there are the amenities to cope with a population of this size in such a small area.
    This design does not integrate with the existing surrounds, neither natural nor man-made, as the Lake Macquarie City Council’s Lifestyle 2030 strategy states developments should. I understand that this development is being called ‘medium density’ however that appears to be pushing on technicalities, as I doubt a reasonable mind would consider something of this size in a neighbourhood centre to be medium density. It has been designed with little or no regard for the area in which it is to be built.
    The height of this development exceeds the Lake Macquarie City Council’s height limits. I am disheartened that it seems council rules and regulations become ‘guidelines’ or ‘grey areas’ for large developments. How is this DA even being considered when it is clearly in opposition to a hardened rule. Apparently rules can be blurred for large developers but heaven help those who use the wrong nails on their DA for a garage.
    The surrounding residences are houses or townhouses of a maximum height of 2 storeys. They are mixed lots that provide a visual and aesthetic break from monotonous buildings. There is quite a bit of in-fill development in Whitebridge, consisting entirely of townhouses, however for the most part these have integrated into the surrounds and have attracted little or no attention or objection from the community. This proposal would do no such thing as such an obvious change in building height, density and appearance will be an obvious and disastrous addition to this beautiful village.
    Whitebridge is known for its bush surrounds, an environmentally friendly area that hosts a number of beautiful and well regarded areas that Lake Macquarie Council should be proud of and seek to preserve the integrity of, such as the Fernleigh track, Glenrock reserve, Dudley beach, etc. Residents from all over Lake Macquarie and Newcastle visit this area as it is a naturally beautiful, highly regarded environment that caters for such a wide range of the population. This development will detract from these community assets in every possible way.
    2. Traffic and congestion
    Pedestrian safety has been a major issue in an increasingly busy area. As it is currently Whitebridge village has limited parking, congestion times are growing and there is limited solutions once a large population has moved in to the area. With the influx of cars from a development of this size the traffic and pedestrian congestion will be moved to dangerous levels.
    My daughter attends preschool on Tumpoa Street, to get there we have to walk up Lonus Avenue and cross Kopa Street. As I am walking with a pram (for my son) and my 3 year old daughter we can sometimes be waiting quite some time for a safe time to cross the road. The high school, day care, preschool, tennis courts, childrens’ park and sporting fields are all accessed by this Avenue. As I often walk this area I have witnessed, on a regular basis, near misses of pedestrians. Now this is with the current traffic along Lonus Avenue and with only a few houses down Kopa Street. Once an additional 200 cars are entering and exiting onto this street, I cannot imagine how dangerous this area will be.
    The public transport in Whitebridge is minimal. My husband and I, and everyone I know in the area, would be unable to compute to work via public transport alone, due to the lack of frequency or destinations. It is impossible to believe that an influx of 91 residences, could even remotely rely on public transport, which means that an influx of 200+ cars is inevitable. I really cannot fathom how this suburb would cope. MAJOR works would need to be undertaken to even begin to address the traffic and pedestrian safety issues this development would raise.
    3. Social impact
    The concentration of so many dwellings into such a small space brings with it a range of social problems. There is inadequate space for residents to spend their time within their own dwellings and Whitebridge does not have the infrastructure or activity that a larger town or city has to cater for this number of people. There will inevitably be an increase in 'bored youths' within the neighbourhood.
    I have lived in many high density developments before moving to Whitebridge, however they have always been in cities or large regional areas with the surrounding amenities, transport, shops, community activities and social venues to accommodate the population. The limited personal and communal space that this development offers is not ‘balanced out’ by the amenities of the area.
    Whitebridge is a beautiful suburb to live and a wonderful suburb to visit, however Whitebridge has limited amenities which will not cope with an increase of 300+ people caused by a development of this size. The local daycare centre, as an example, has a three year waiting period for any positions (I know as we have been on it for nearly 3 years). The local shops rarely have free parking in busy times, the bus stop is dangerous, and the parking at the shops fails to accommodate even the current residents. There is no way this area will cope with a development of this size.
    4. Environmental concerns
    There is an obvious lack of green space in this development. There is the mandatory green strip and a few feature trees, an abysmal effort considering the environmental wonderland in which this development will be built.
    The lack of personal green space raises a multitude of social problems and problems created from the over extension of local amenities, however the environmental problems raised are also significant. The massive power usage using air conditioners to alleviate the heat from such close living plus clothes dryers as there is no room to hang washing, to just list a few.
    The current storm water drain for this area is between my house and the Fernleigh track. As it is now, in a heavy shower of rain it very quickly becomes too much for the drains and pools onto the Fernleigh track. I understand the storm water management facilities will be housed in the designated environmental area, how is this possible? I can only assume that this also is a rule that can be bent by large developers, much like the height limits.

    As an additional issue I would like to raise the apparent disdain, disrespect and arrogance in which the community has been treated by the developers.
    *There has been a total lack of adequate community consultation.
    * Verbal abuse, by the developers, have been made at community meetings (witnessed and heard by many bystanders).
    * A very large, public billboard was erected by the developer depicting them throwing money around whilst mocking locals in a staged horse race.
    * The developer has very publicly admitted to illegally bribing parliamentary candidates
    * I have sent emails to the developers with my concerns (in the early stages) and have received replies of ‘not our problem’.
    * The previous DA had planned a small childrens’ park, to ‘address’ some of the community concerns and ‘sweeten the deal’. This current DA has now made that park private, the exact opposite of what locals were promised.

    There is an opportunity here to create something remarkable, a development that integrates with the community, that provides something aesthetically pleasing, that addresses community concerns and promotes this beautiful area.
    Why are we having a debate about a development that blurs the rules and just squeezes into the grey area of zoning and environmental requirements?
    Let’s aim higher than mediocre.
    Let’s raise the expectations from ‘barely acceptable’ to ‘exemplary’.
    Let’s have commonsense prevail.

    Kindest regards,
    Rebecca Beveridge

  227. Michelle Burdekin commented

    To The General Manager of LMCC,

    Thank you for the opportunity to submit my concerns regarding the current version of DA 1774/2013.

    The initial conclusion from LMCC Integrated Planning about the use of this land during the Planning Proposal process justified by their own Environmental Review which justified and recommended:

    • Approximate yield of 30 dwellings (50 for all land rezoned residential on former East Charlestown Bypass, not just this site)
    • Protection of Environmental Corridor – need to strengthen; threatened species in the area
    • Inclusion of small business zone
    • Maintenance of local character
    • No need for any extra infrastructure since such minimal changes

    Now support has been given from LMCC Integrated Planning to use this land for
    • Yield of 91 dwellings

    On the understanding that in order to achieve this the proposal will have to
    • Break Height of Buildings restrictions for this site
    • Rely on site coverage which is beyond DCP guidelines
    • Impose a severe visual impact through its intrusive bulk and scale
    • Halve the viability of the Conservation Zone through including infrastructure, APZ in this zone
    • Over-ride LMCC Objectives for Neighbourhood Centres which are deemed medium density within and around centre

    The justifications for this support are similar to those given by the developer and so presumably have been part of the pre-planning meetings, though no record of these have been made public.

    Justification in the IP-Strategic Planning Referral Response from August 2014 (though uploaded onto Apptracker 25/3/2015 after public request) describes the situation:
    • Whitebridge is in the East Lakes Intensification Corridor
    • It is providing medium density housing near the Whitebridge town (sic) centre
    • It is in a well serviced area
    • The location provides access to education and employment without reliance on a motor car
    • Provides a mix of housing types

    The first point is arguable based on the lack of accurate map lines and the schematic nature of the map. Also because site specific context would suggest contra-indicators for development of this intensity. The second point ignores the high density within the B1 zone and borderline high density in R3 zone. The third point is arguable. Most residents have noticed long delays getting onto Dudley Road off side-roads, parking issues around the centre, infrequent buses and limited public space in the form of parks. The fourth point may be right for local high school students but ignores what could be an undesirable walk for Primary students due to the nature of distance, roads and traffic. It also ignores the higher than average use of cars by Whitebridge residents supported by ABS statistics. Most residents would drive to work because public transport is inadequate, slow and doubles the time of driving. On the last point it is accurate. What it doesn’t capture though is the less for more axiom of many of these types of dwellings which has been a point of discussion in the planning world for some time now.

    The question must remain, for whose benefit really is an insistence on maximising housing yield and at what point has the balance tipped too far in one direction.
    Having failed to be impressed with the reasoning given so far in support of this development as it currently stands in relation to site use, I am going to be bold enough to suggest that Strategic Planning has got it wrong by ignoring broader concerns and has looked too ‘inwardly’ at this development without due consideration to how it will work when placed into this location.

    I appeal to those who will further assess this DA on merit that full consideration be given to the foundational objectives and strategies set down by LMCC for such a site as this one at Whitebridge, an infill opportunity, confined by existing infrastructure, in a Neighbourhood Centre abutting a Green Corridor and the Fernleigh Track.
    I hope that the desired future for Whitebridge and other Neighbourhood Centres isn’t based exclusively on maximising the provision of housing but also includes the enhancement of the environment, built and natural.

    Regards,
    Michelle Burdekin
    21 Hudson Street
    Whitebridge

  228. Sarah Purvis commented

    I wish to, once again, express my objection towards DA 1774/2013.

    Community concerns remain the same, if not stronger, as they were in the beginning of this process, meaning they have not been addressed.

    Traffic congestion remains a huge problem. 92 units in the village centre will create a tremendous amount of traffic and is a huge concern, especially when considering the suburb is a gateway to Dudley and Redhead. This number also exceeds the appropriate number of dwellings per hectare as deemed fit when the land was sold.

    Pedestrian safety as a result of this traffic, is also a huge concern, especially when considering the number of pedestrians attempting to use the pathways and pedestrian crossings when accessing the shops, park, tennis courts, high school, daycare centre and preschool.

    The culture of the suburb will be adversely impacted by having a development in its centre that is in such stark contrast to how the rest of residents in the suburb are living, particularly considering buildings of 4 storeys which is above the height restrictions for the area as laid down by council.

    The developer has either paid no attention to the concerns of the community, or (more likely) avoided addressing the concerns of the community because they are in conflict with their own agenda. To then request the compulsory contribution to council be waived demonstrates the lack of goodwill in their intentions. It is possible to profit from developing within a community whilst also improving that community. We only wish SNL took this perspective so that everyone could 'profit'.

    Council must consider not only the residents of Whitebridge, but also the residents of the greater area who will be negatively affected if the development goes ahead in its proposed form.

  229. Jason Hepple commented

    It is almost unfathomable that this development has been allowed to progress to the point of assessment by the JRPP, considering its lack of adherence to council guidelines, the inability of local infrastructure to support a development of this size and its disharmony with the surrounding suburb.

    The site was originally intended for 40-50 dwellings (even less considering the original calculation included land on the other side of Kopa Street). To suggest 92 dwellings demonstrates a lack of understanding on the part of the developer of Whitebridge being a Neighbourhood Centre, underneath Town Centre and Regional Centre on the LMCC hierarchy.

    Further to this, 4 storeys, or even 3, does not reflect LMCC’s guidelines for development within a Neighbourhood Centre.

    Traffic safety of schoolchildren and other pedestrians will be compromised by this development. It will lead to an intensive and unsafe increase in traffic on roads that are already functioning over-capacity. The area is a thoroughfare for people accessing local beaches and it is also home to a high school, preschool and long daycare centre. It is unsafe and irresponsible to compromise the safety of people by squeezing 92 dwellings into the centre of the suburb where they will be required to use the already busy roads that service schools in the area.

    If this development goes ahead in its current form, there is a very high chance that similar developments will spring up along the land once reserved for the East Charlestown Bypass. This will inevitably and irreversibly change the entire character of these coastal suburbs in a negative manner.

    The proposed development of this site is opportunistic and detrimental to the long-standing community. Urban consolidation must be approached in a well-planned, sensible manner with an eye to quality, happy communities for the future. This proposed development does not fit this description.

    Jason Hepple

  230. Jordan hoey commented

    I think this is a great idea, think you all need to stop bitching

  231. mark commented

    Lets just remember that this development is all about greed, yes the the pure greed of developers, they have no concern for the suburb the environment or its residents, they care only about their pockets. In this real estate market they would have no problem getting $400k to $500k per block for normal residential homes but apparently that's not enough, how much money do these greedy developers need, haven't you got enough money yet Mr Greugen. It would be nice for once that the council and the government bodies do the right thing for the people and not for the greed of developers.

  232. Karina Currington commented

    To whom it may concern, RE : DA 1774/2013

    I would like to resubmit all my previous submissions, objecting to this development application.

    I would also like to add that the JRPP have asked the developer for specific issues to be addressed and corrected. The most recent plan by SNL has not identified and corrected all the issues. It does not meet the requirements, conditions or specifications as determined by the JRPP. Therefore on this basis alone, the DA should be rejected.

    There have been other issues not taken into account, the environmental impact for one was completely glossed over at the JRPP public meeting held on July 23rd, and quite frankly showed disrespect for the people who are leaders in their field of expertise, to not be acknowledged for the studies pertaining to negative and detrimental impacts on native flora and fauna should this DA be approved in current form. Another issue is the statement "the desired future character of Whitebridge" that has been thrown around quite often by the developers team. This is an affront to current residents. It's akin to saying that what is built here now is sub-standard and not acceptable for the future of Whitebridge. This suburb is filled with many proud residents and I find this statement offensive and unhelpful in finding a compromise between residents and the developer.

    Wade Morris, town planner for SNL stated to the Newcastle Herald on July 2nd 2015, quote "the Whitebridge plan was ‘‘a bit of a test case’’... and Mr Sean Brown, Whitebridge Community Alliance spokesman, said it would ‘‘set a precedent.’’end quote. If this is the case, the Whitebridge community at large were inadequately notified of the ramifications when this parcel of public land was rezoned in 2010 and privately sold, resulting in this benchmark development. The Councillors responsible at the time were either not aware of the implications of the rezone, and given poor advice, or it shows incompetence on their part, hence their failure to support the current proposal. This is grossly unfair for the people of Whitebridge to endure a seemingly endless campaign against this monstrosity, which could have been avoided altogether if the land was correctly zoned in the first instance by the elected members.

    After many failed attempts at granting this DA for approval, I really see no choice here but to go back to Council, rezone the land APPROPRIATELY and ON JUST TERMS with adequate community consultation so the land owners can implement a suitable development that will be acceptable to the current residents and future members of Whitebridge.

    Regards,

    Karina Currington

  233. Judy Gray commented

    Dear Sir/Madam,
    As a resident of Whitebridge I am writing to object to DA 1772-2013 in Whitebridge.
    I have previously twice submitted my concerns about this development and wish to state that those concerns continue to have not been addressed.
    I understand this land has been zoned ‘medium density’ and as such a certain number of dwellings are required to be built. The current number of residential plus commercial properties is an excessive number for such a small community. The zoning requirements could still be met with far fewer properties.
    Development needs to be “integrated with, rather than separating from existing surrounding development” (Section 5.3.3. Lake Macquarie City Council Lifestyle 2020 strategy). This development proposes wall to wall structures 2 – 3 storeys high, which would completely ‘separate’ the existing surrounding development as this type of structure is non-existent in the local area.
    The local amenities are already strained coping with the current population. Roads are extremely busy and dangerous, the Fernleigh track is often crowded and parking is insufficient. A development of this many units would exasperate these already existing problems.
    The social impact of such high density living in a small area would be disastrous. Residents would have little or no personal space, a lack of amenities and public transport to cope with their needs, extreme heat due to lack of greenery and poor building design, and extremely busy roads.
    These buildings need to be planned to integrate with the existing community, provide personal and communal green space, space in between dwellings for trees and privacy and ideally contribute to the local community, e.g. building of a park, new pathways, extra parking, upgrading of roads, etc.
    Further, I am concerned about the lack of compliance by the developers to the conditions raised by the JRPP on 23rd July. It would be a travesty for this revised plan to be accepted in the face of this non compliance to the conditions.

  234. Niclas hakansson commented

    I would like to resubmit my previous submission, as the issues I raised have not been addressed!
    I wish to ONCE AGAIN object to the development proposal 1774/2013.

    Negative Social Impact:
    The fact that this development will not sit harmoniously with the existing suburb will create an ’us’ and 'them’ mentality which is inducive to crime. It will negatively impact upon the community-minded spirit of the neighbourhood. The pleasant, neighbourly atmosphere of this suburb will be destroyed. One development should not be allowed to negatively impact so many people. Whitebridge is a Neighbourhood Centre, according to the LMCC, so why is a development which follows guidelines for a Regional Centre
    being applied to Whitebridge? The local character of Whitebridge, which has existed
    over many generations, would be tragically changed forever. Whilst this land should and
    must be developed, current residents must not be subjected to such a mutation of their neighbourhood in order to satisfy the aspirations of a commercial developer. Additionally,
    future residents of new housing in Whitebridge should enjoy a feeling of belonging to and fusing with the community, rather than feeling detached due to such an obvious discordance in their living arrangements.

    The suggestion that 92 dwellings is appropriate on this piece of land is ludicrous, as is 3-4 storeys in a suburb of free-standing houses. The visual monstrosity will not be the only problem - higher density living is associated with negative social outcomes. It decreases social interaction of residents and detracts from a sense of community. Our suburbs should be nurtured if we are to further increase our quality of living and the desirability of our Local Government Area. The design report from the developer states, "The secondary dwellings will allow additional rental affordability." (page C:02) This implies the development is aimed as investment properties. This mismatch of demographics will also contribute toward changing the character of the suburb which is 81% owner occupied. When considering this new housing is all on one block, it is glaringly obvious that there is a mismatch with the current character of the suburb.

    Traffic and Safety Problems:
    Lonus Avenue is already at capacity during peak school times and to add an additional, say, 200 cars to this equation, coming in and out of Kopa St, onto Lonus, would be disastrous. The roundabout also already experiences traffic congestion at these times. The safety of pedestrians is at risk if this development is to go ahead. Families with prams accessing the park, Birral ee Daycare Centre, and Whitebridge Preschool on
    Tumpoa Street, school children walking to and from Whitebridge High and the general public accessing shops and facilities will be placed in a daunting position of navigating overly-busy roads and crossings. This is not the spirit of a ’Neighbourhood Centre’.
    It appears the developers are quite aware of this problem as they have obviously attempted to down-play the traffic situation in their report and have not appropriately addressed the characteristics of the area, that being a high pedestrian/cyclist zone. Additionally, the traffic survey took place on one afternoon only. There are no provisions for improved roads and/or traffic conditions in this application.

    Parking is also already a problem in Whitebridge, with cars parked along Dudley Road for people to access the shops and cafes. This impacts upon visibility for pedestrians and motorists. The 20 ’new’ carparks being offered by the developer are not technically ’new’ as the area being assigned to this is currently used to capacity as overflow parking from the formal carpark on Dudley Rd. It is inevitable that there will also be parking overflow from the development itself, considering the parking assigned in the DA is realistically not adequate for the number of dwellings.

    Negative Environmental Impact:
    I am very concerned about how arrangements for stormwater will impact upon the Fernleigh Track. The calculations appear flawed and the Track is in danger
    of being impacted during any periods of heavy rain. The 7(2) land should also remain independent from any use by the development.

    Safety and Traffic Problems:
    A single entry/exit point, that being Kopa Street, for 92 dwellings will clearly cause tremendous changes in traffic conditions not only in Kopa Street, but on Lonus Avenue, and the roundabout via which most drivers access Lonus Avenue. The adjacent park, which is used regularly, the tennis courts and the oval will become much less-pleasant places to frequent. This will break down community ties. The traffic along Lonus Avenue will also put families of the Birralee Long Day Care Centre at risk. Students accessing
    Whitebridge High School by foot along Lonus will be placed in greater danger, and families accessing Whitebridge Preschool in Tumpoa Street will be negatively affected. It
    is already difficult and sometimes dangerous for buses using Lonus Ave to access the high school.

    Conclusion:
    The way this piece of land is to be developed needs to be considered with much greater regard for both current and future residents of the area. If the development goes ahead in its current form, a disastrous precedent will be set for more of our suburbs to be developed in a similarly mindless and careless fashion.

    Regards
    Niclas Hakansson

  235. Becky Beveridge commented

    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

    I am writing to state my objections to the proposed Whitebridge development DA 1774/2013. Community objections continue to be valid, despite the (trivial) changes that have been made.

    I am disappointed that the recommendations set out by the JRPP have been blatantly disregarded and it once again exhibits the arrogance of SNL. Community objections about the area in which they live and experience daily have been disregarded by both the developer and, sadly, by the LMCC.

    It became clear at the JRPP meeting that the councilors who voted for this land to be rezoned did not foresee the ramifications of this and were in fact under a false belief about the density that would be built. Residents were NOT properly informed about this rezoning and what the implications of this were. We should not have to wear the mistakes of those responsible for this.

    I would first like to point out that I am not ‘anti-development’ and if this development had been appropriate to the area in both size and design I would not be voicing an objection.

    I am a resident of Whitebridge and will be a direct neighbour of this development. The following outlines my primary concerns,
    1. Density
    This is an over development of a suburban lot within a neighbourhood centre. I believe that most of my concerns, and indeed probably most of the concerns of those who are objecting, would be alleviated by a development of a lower density. High density living is suited to inner city or regional centres where there are the amenities to cope with a population of this size in such a small area.

    This design does not integrate with the existing surrounds, neither natural nor man-made, as the Lake Macquarie City Council’s Lifestyle 2030 strategy states developments should. I understand that this development is being called ‘medium density’ however that appears to be pushing on technicalities, as I doubt a reasonable mind would consider something of this size in a neighbourhood centre to be medium density. It has been designed with little or no regard for the area in which it is to be built.

    The height of this development exceeds the Lake Macquarie City Council’s height limits. I am disheartened that it seems council rules and regulations become ‘guidelines’ or ‘grey areas’ for large developments. I understand the development has been lowered in height after the JRPP meeting, however it is still exceeding the height limits for this area.

    The surrounding residences are houses or townhouses of a maximum height of 2 storeys. They are mixed lots that provide a visual and aesthetic break from monotonous buildings. There is quite a bit of in-fill development in Whitebridge, consisting entirely of townhouses, however for the most part these have integrated into the surrounds and have attracted little or no attention or objection from the community. This proposal would do no such thing as such an obvious change in building height, density and appearance will be an obvious and disastrous addition to this beautiful village.

    Whitebridge is known for its bush surrounds, an environmentally friendly area that hosts a number of beautiful and well regarded areas that Lake Macquarie Council should be proud of and seek to preserve the integrity of, such as the Fernleigh track, Glenrock reserve, Dudley beach, etc. Residents from all over Lake Macquarie and Newcastle visit this area as it is a naturally beautiful, highly regarded environment that caters for such a wide range of the population. This development will detract from these community assets in every possible way.

    2. Traffic and congestion
    Pedestrian safety has been a major issue in an increasingly busy area. As it is currently Whitebridge village has limited parking, congestion times are growing and there is limited solutions once a large population has moved in to the area. With the influx of cars from a development of this size the traffic and pedestrian congestion will be moved to dangerous levels.

    My daughter attends preschool on Tumpoa Street, to get there we have to walk up Lonus Avenue and cross Kopa Street. As I am walking with a pram (for my son) and my 3 year old daughter we can sometimes be waiting quite some time for a safe time to cross the road. The high school, day care, preschool, tennis courts, childrens’ park and sporting fields are all accessed by this Avenue. As I often walk this area I have witnessed, on a regular basis, near misses of pedestrians and car accidents. Now this is with the current traffic along Lonus Avenue and with only a few houses down Kopa Street. Once an additional 200 cars are entering and exiting onto this street, I cannot imagine how dangerous this area will be.

    The public transport in Whitebridge is minimal. My husband and I, and everyone I know in the area, would be unable to compute to work via public transport alone, due to the lack of frequency or destinations. It is impossible to believe that an influx of 91 residences, could even remotely rely on public transport, which means that an influx of 200+ cars is inevitable. I really cannot fathom how this suburb would cope. MAJOR works would need to be undertaken to even begin to address the traffic and pedestrian safety issues this development would raise. LMCC state that most residents of this new development will rely on public transport therefore it will not impact traffic. This is a ridiculous and completely implausible statement.

    3. Social impact
    The concentration of so many dwellings into such a small space brings with it a range of social problems. There is inadequate space for residents to spend their time within their own dwellings and Whitebridge does not have the infrastructure or activity that a larger town or city has to cater for this number of people. There will inevitably be an increase in 'bored youths' within the neighbourhood.

    I have lived in many high density developments before moving to Whitebridge, however they have always been in cities or large regional areas with the surrounding amenities, transport, shops, community activities and social venues to accommodate the population. The limited personal and communal space that this development offers is not ‘balanced out’ by the amenities of the area.

    Whitebridge is a beautiful suburb to live and a wonderful suburb to visit, however Whitebridge has limited amenities which will not cope with an increase of 300+ people caused by a development of this size. The local daycare centre, as an example, has a three year waiting period for any positions (I know as we have been on it for nearly 3 years). The local shops rarely have free parking in busy times, the bus stop is dangerous, and the parking at the shops fails to accommodate even the current residents. There is no way this area will cope with a development of this size.

    4. Environmental concerns
    There is an obvious lack of green space in this development. There is the mandatory green strip and a few feature trees, an abysmal effort considering the environmental wonderland in which this development will be built.

    The lack of personal green space raises a multitude of social problems and problems created from the over extension of local amenities, however the environmental problems raised are also significant. The massive power usage using air conditioners to alleviate the heat from such close living plus clothes dryers as there is no room to hang washing, to just list a few.

    The current storm water drain for this area is between my house and the Fernleigh track. As it is now, in a heavy shower of rain it very quickly becomes too much for the drains and pools onto the Fernleigh track. I understand the storm water management facilities will be housed in the designated environmental area, how is this possible? I can only assume that this also is a rule that can be bent by large developers, much like the height limits.

    As an additional issue I would like to raise the apparent disdain, disrespect and arrogance in which the community has been treated by the developers.

    *There has been a total lack of adequate community consultation.
    * Verbal abuse, by the developers, have been made at community meetings (witnessed and heard by many bystanders).
    * A very large, public billboard was erected by the developer depicting them throwing money around whilst mocking locals in a staged horse race.
    * The developer has very publicly admitted to illegally bribing parliamentary candidates
    * I have sent emails to the developers with my concerns (in the early stages) and have received replies of ‘not our problem’.
    *The continued disregard for rules and regulations, including conservation zones and height limits.
    * Disregard for JRPP recommendations
    * Complete disregard for community concerns and needs.

    There is an opportunity here to create something remarkable, a development that integrates with the community, that provides something aesthetically pleasing, that addresses community concerns and promotes this beautiful area.

    SNL’s spokesman made a comment at the JRPP meeting that ‘community members are supportive as they are not objecting as much’. There is a big difference between quietening due to support and quietening due to feeling disheartened and doomed. The residents are still VERY MUCH IN OBJECTION TO THIS OVER DEVELOPMENT, however after watching this monstrosity bulldoze through commonsense and rationality, all that is left is.... gloom.

    Kindest regards,
    Becky Beveridge

  236. Nicole Gintings commented

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    As a local resident I would like to express my objection to the proposed development in Whitebridge DA-1772-2013.

    SNL have continued to ignore community concerns and have continued to flout regulations and the JRPP recommendations.

    I do not object to the development of this vacant land, however I believe this is an over-development and does not integrate with the existing surrounds, as per Lake Macquarie City Council's Lifestyle 2030 strategy. I understand that this document is not a concrete set of rules, but it was developed for this area and has been referenced by both SNL and LMCC, so we must assume that the vision of integration within this strategy is to be upheld.

    After examining the amended proposal for this development I must state my objection and ask that the JRPP reject this application.

    I object for the following specific reasons;
    *The density is far too high for this area. I understand the zoning status (which the residents were not adequately informed of when this land was rezoned), however this level of density will create a wealth of problems to the area. The density could be easily reduced whilst still remaining ‘medium density’. I believe most objections would be void if the density was reduced to a reasonable level.

    *The height of the buildings continues to exceed the height limits of the area. There is an obvious solution, adhere to the height limits.

    * The traffic and parking congestion will be pushed to a dangerous level with the addition of 89 new dwellings all exiting onto Lonus Avenue, with preschools, day cares, high school, sporting fields, childrens' park, etc. along the same 'dead-end' road. There have already been accidents involving children and many close calls and as my children will be walking to and attending Whitebridge highschool this is a major concern for me. The lack of adequate and efficient public transport ensures that most of these dwellings will be adding an additional 2 or 3 cars to the neighbourhood.

    * The aesthetics of this development do not in any way integrate with the surrounding environment. There are no 3 storey wall to wall dwellings in the area and it will create a concrete eyesore. This design is far more suited to an inner city area rather than a suburban village. The units should be a MAXIMUM of 2 storey and have less dwellings attached along a single wall, to attempt to create some harmony with its village and natural surrounds.

    *This development is poorly designed. The buildings that were recently changed do not ‘step down’ adequately to the buildings behind them. It is a visual and design eyesore.

    * There is an obvious lack of green space in this development, aside from the mandatory (minimum) nature corridor along the Fernleigh Track. Again this creates total disharmony with the existing surrounds, raises concerns about storm water runoff, creates a massive power usage using air conditioners to compensate the masses of concrete and clothes dryers as there is no room to hang washing, and once again creates a visual eyesore.

    * The ‘conservation zone’ is being used for a multitude of purposes that do not fall within the realms of conservation.

    * The community space, including childrens’ park, is so small in comparison to the development that it is insignificant. This needs to be rectified.
    SNL have stated that this development is a ‘testing ground’ for future large scale developments. We should not be accepting this low standard. I ask that the JRPP reject this proposal.

    Thank you,
    Nicole Gintings

  237. Renae Conroy commented

    I am incensed and frustrated by the developer’s lack of compliance with the conditions of approval as determined by the JRPP on 23rd July of this year. These conditions represented minimal change to the DA, and even to this, the developer was unwilling to comply. This lack of willingness to respond to other parties has been an ongoing theme during the process so far.
    I hereby resubmit all my previous submissions, objecting to this development application.

    Traffic and safety remain paramount in the minds of residents, students and their families.
    Discordance with of the style of this development with its current surroundings will divide a community which currently enjoys a harmonious existence.
    4-storeys along Dudley Rd will provide an eyesore for motorists passing through on their way to Redhead and Dudley beaches, as well as detract from the lovely atmosphere of the shopping district.
    The environment corridor is in risk of being used as a public pathway, which is not what the community intended to happen when they asked for permeability through the site.
    Users of the Fernleigh Track may be disappointed with their experience once reaching this middle-point, due to the buildings being so close to the track.
    Storm water provisions appear inadequate and could also impact the Fernleigh Track.
    There exists more land in Whitebridge which will be used in a higher-density fashion in the future, given the new zoning. This should be taken into account.
    This is a great opportunity to show how urban consolidation can be achieved in the right way. Make a good example of Whitebridge. Don't allow Whitebridge to become an example of a lesson to be learnt.

    Renae Conroy

  238. Kristen Hepple commented

    I resubmit my previous submission and would like to add the following. The concerns of the community and fauna experts have been ignored. The JRPP has been ignored. Concerns about how this type of development in this type of suburb will have negative implications, now and in the future, are real and demand respect.

    There has been no real alterations by the developers in line with either council regulations/policies or community consultation. This development is inappropriate for the area - the developer is making a profit grab at the cost of the surrounding community, it's environment and traditional way of life. Why should this developer be allowed to 'fly in the face' of council and the community for his own gain? This is an inappropriate use of the land - it must be significantly down sized or there will be road chaos in the streets all over whitebridge.

    Kristen Hepple

  239. Luke Searles commented

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    I object to DA 1772/2013 and ask that the JRPP reject this over development.

    This development does not integrate with the surrounding land and does not meet the community concerns.

    This land was rezoned with little consultation with the community and as SNL’s spokesman stated it is now being used as a ‘testing ground’ for future developments. It is far too dense and too high for this area. It does not demonstrate any understanding of the local traffic problems, social awareness of what this would do to a village community, or concern for the environment in which it will be built.

    The high density in this small area will create a myriad of problems including higher crime rates, traffic congestion, pressure on amenities, pedestrian safety issues, to list just a few. It will look synonymous to a ghetto. Whitebridge is a small, quiet suburb which boasts a friendly community atmosphere and a thriving environmental landscape, both would be jeopardised by this development.

    The appropriate density zoning could still be achieved with far fewer units.

    The development exceeds the height limits of the area and will create a visual eyesore to the existing shops and residences.

    Whitebridge does not have the road systems, parking or infrastructure to cope with this many new cars to Dudley Road, Lonus Avenue, local shops and nearby streets.

    The development is poorly designed with the obvious inference is that this development has been planned to maximise profits through high density and low quality.

    To SNL, I understand as developers you need to make money off property, but don't make the community suffer because you over paid for the site.

    The JRPP need to reject this overdevelopment.

  240. Jason Hepple commented

    I hereby resubmit my prior submissions. The public is not being heard, experts are not being heard and now the JRPP is not being heard. This DA should not be approved.

    It is almost unfathomable that this development has been allowed to progress to the point of assessment by the JRPP, considering its lack of adherence to council guidelines, the inability of local infrastructure to support a development of this size and its disharmony with the surrounding suburb.
    The site was originally intended for 40-50 dwellings (even less considering the original calculation included land on the other side of Kopa Street). To suggest 92 dwellings demonstrates a lack of understanding on the part of the developer of Whitebridge being a Neighbourhood Centre, underneath Town Centre and Regional Centre on the LMCC hierarchy.
    Further to this, 4 storeys, or even 3, does not reflect LMCC’s guidelines for development within a Neighbourhood Centre.
    Traffic safety of schoolchildren and other pedestrians will be compromised by this development. It will lead to an intensive and unsafe increase in traffic on roads that are already functioning over-capacity. The area is a thoroughfare for people accessing local beaches and it is also home to a high school, preschool and long daycare centre. It is unsafe and irresponsible to compromise the safety of people by squeezing 92 dwellings into the centre of the suburb where they will be required to use the already busy roads that service schools in the area.
    If this development goes ahead in its current form, there is a very high chance that similar developments will spring up along the land once reserved for the East Charlestown Bypass. This will inevitably and irreversibly change the entire character of these coastal suburbs in a negative manner.
    The proposed development of this site is opportunistic and detrimental to the long-standing community. Urban consolidation must be approached in a well-planned, sensible manner with an eye to quality, happy communities for the future. This proposed development does not fit this description.

    Regards

    Jason Hepple

  241. Yvette Harris commented

    my concern like many residents in the area and surrounds is the amount of units/townhouses getting built onto such a small area. i did attend the last meeting in council and it was suggested that they remove some levels and also some of the units - but that doesnt seem to be the case.
    i would love to see development in the whitebridge area but not to this scale. i also live right on the corner of the only entry and exit that will be for this development and with so many people using the fernleigh track and walking to and from the high school as well as the tennis courts on the opposite side and the preschool not much further down the road that this does need to be addressed.
    i appreciate your time for reading this

  242. Sharna Harris commented

    i am a student at whitebridge high school and i would like to voice my concern over the traffic congestion on morning and afternoon school days. many students use lonus ave and the fernleigh track to get to and from school and i have witnessed some very near misses between cars and students. it is not a safe road to cross at any time and with the development having only one exit and entry point i feel this will get worse.
    another concern of course is the amount of buildings going up in the small area.
    a lot of people use the track and i feel that is has not been done to coincide with the area that is whitebridge. it will be a eyesore from the dudley road as well as station st and lonus ave.
    thank you

  243. Ben Conroy commented

    Lake Macquarie City Council
    The General Manager
    PO Box 1906
    Hunter Region Mail Centre,2310

    I would like to resubmit all my previous submissions as the community’s concerns, and now the JRPP’s directives, have not been addressed. The developer’s lack of compliance and lack of respect for the decision of the deciding body, the JRPP, should result in the rejection of this DA.

    The development of Dudley Road and Kopa Street is inappropriate for the suburb of Whitebridge.
    The density is too high and consistent with what would be called mass over-development.
    Four storeys is ridiculous in a suburb where nothing else is above 2 storeys. With such a big building proposed along Dudley Road of this height, it will be an eye-sore to see 4-storeys along the strip which currently enjoys a village-like vibe.
    This village-like vibe will be destroyed, which is such a shame, as it is developing into a funky, progressive, social meeting place for many local residents of Whitebridge and surrounding suburbs of Dudley, Redhead and Kahibah. This should be exactly what council wants! Not mass over-development.
    Urban consolidation is necessary but it must be done properly.
    The best of both worlds CAN be achieved.
    Council needs to take responsibility for ensuring that its suburbs are not destroyed by developers whose goal is to make profit. That is surely one of the most important reasons why council exists?!?!
    So, in summary, there are TOO MANY dwellings, the buildings are TOO HIGH and should be limited to 2 storey, the small road, Kopa Street, CANNOT COPE with all the extra traffic, nor can the rest of the infrastructure of Whitebridge, and it will look OUT OF PLACE.
    We trust our council to think reasonably and in the best interests of current and future residents.

    Thank you.
    Ben Conroy

  244. ian harris commented

    i live on Lonus Ave and have seen first hand how the traffic can be not only on Lonus Ave itself on any school day but how it congests at the dudley rd roundabout not only on school days but various times of the week. It can get very difficult to have to go into the shopping precinct now and try to find a parking spot at various times.
    my main concern is once again the size of the development for the size of the block - and although i did attend the last meeting with the JRPP at council it still hasnt been addressed in a matter that was bought up. the levels at the shop facing dudley road are too high and there are still too many units.
    i do live very close to the proposed site and bought a home in this area because of the great community and the feel of the whitebridge area that it was not overcrowded and over built. i would like you to take into consideration that this area is home to not only the people of whitebridge but also all the wildlife, animals and birds who rely on this area with its fernleigh track and the bushland.
    thanks

  245. James Pheils commented

    I once again object to the development in its current form. The fact that this developer has ignored the guidelines set down by the JRPP on 23 July is outrageous. It is disrespectful and a waste of everybody’s time. Development should be a process of consultation and negotiation if the best result is to be achieved for all parties. The fact that this developer has not been willing to do this proves that this development in its current form is not the best outcome for all parties, except the developer.
    The same issues I have raised previously are still pertinent.
    The density is too high, the traffic implications very concerning and the 14metre height along Dudley Rd in conflict with LMCC's height restrictions. Safety of residents, students and shoppers must be an important consideration. As should the precedent that would be set by allowing this type of development to occur. Urban consolidation is inevitable and necessary but this is ill-thought out, opportunistic and of benefit only to the developer. It has potentially devastating consequences for the community.
    I urge the deciding body to enforce LMCC planning guidelines to ensure our suburbs are developed with integrity for the good of all.

    Regards,
    James Pheils

  246. Lynden Jacobi commented

    I would like to make a submission against the DA/1774/2013 at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge.

    At the JRPP meeting on 23 July 2015 there were 4 oral submissions regarding the environment. The JRPP did not address one of them. The LMCC Report says, “ The site does not contain significant habitat attributes and no threatened species, populations or ecological communities listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act or Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act are likely to occur. “ This is despite no 7-part test being undertaken by council. Professor Clulow has since done this test and he has determined that there are squirrel gliders to the north and south of this narrow corridor. His submission to the JRPP was ignored.

    Once all submissions were heard at the meeting, the JRPP and LMCC staff deliberated behind closed doors for an hour. When they returned, the JRPP made no mention of the severing of the wildlife corridor or the need for council to ensure proper studies are done. At the very end of the JRPP requests made to SNL, regarding for the most part height restrictions, council handed the JRPP a document. A JRPP representative read the first few sentences before the Chair of the JRPP asked her to stop. The small amount read out explained that the LMCC would improve native vegetation on the Station Street side of the Fernleigh Track to improve the wildlife corridor and additional to this they would put up 5 poles to allow for the passage of squirrel gliders! Surely this means that even the council now knows there is an endangered species here.

    I have been unable to find any reference to this document on the apptracker website. Is this the “additional information to support our inspection of the site” that Elizabeth Lambert refers to in a response (email 17 Aug 2015) to Michelle Burdekin’s query (email 3 August 2015) Why isn’t the original document on the apptracker website and when was it submitted for consideration by the JRPP?

    It is obvious that a proper Species Impact Survey must be done and a proper plan must be implemented for improving this very narrow link between the Belmont Wetlands, Awabakal Nature Reserve and Glenrock State Recreation Area.

    There are objectives in the LMCC LEP2014 regarding this issue that have been overlooked. LMCC have Flora and Fauna Survey Guidelines that have been ignored. A number of important issues in LMCC’s Tree Preservation and Native Vegetation Management Guidelines have not been considered.

    It would be easy to implement all of the rules and follow all the guidelines if the development was of a size that fits within this area. It would still be possible to have 60 to 70 dwellings, which would be consistent with the plan for medium density infill housing in this area. We could have a healthy ecological corridor as was intended when the area was rezoned.

    The problem is that this developer wants to use public space and destroy a valuable wildlife corridor solely for his own benefit. Whitebridge is not in desperate need for this huge number of dwellings and our community would be better served by a development that complies with current council guidelines and is in keeping with the future needs of our suburb.

    Below I have copied the relevant parts of the LEP, Flora and Fauna Guidelines and Tree Preservation and Native Vegetation Management Guidelines so that you can easily see our concerns regarding the objectives, regulations and guidelines that have previously been ignored by LMCC & JRPP.

    There are objectives for land zoned 7 (2) Conservation in the LEP. These objectives have not been considered in this DA

    1 Objectives of zone
    The objectives of this zone are to:
    (a) protect, conserve and enhance land that is environmentally important, and
    (b) protect, manage and enhance corridors to facilitate species movement, dispersal and interchange of genetic material, and
    (c) enable development where it can be demonstrated that the development will not compromise the ecological, hydrological, scenic or scientific attributes of the land or adjacent land in Zone 7 (1), and
    (d) ensure that development proposals result in rehabilitation and conservation of environmentally important land, and
    (e) provide for sustainable water cycle management.

    In LMCC’s Tree Preservation and Native vegetation Management Guidelines section 5.1 there are a number of things you have neglected to consider.
    In assessing a tree application or development application to clear, injure, ringbark, cut down top, lop remove, or destroy native vegetation,
    Council will consider the following matters (as are relevant to the specific circumstances of that application and the site to which it relates).
    d the significance of the tree/s or vegetation including:
    iv whether the vegetation forms part of a native vegetation corridor (see Appendix 10.4);
    viii whether the tree/s or native vegetation is of visual or amenity significance
    e the significance and severity of the proposed impact including the following:
    i effects on natural ecosystems, wildlife, wildlife habitats and whether fauna needs protection;

    In LMCC’s Flora and Fauna Survey Guidelines there are guidelines that have been ignored.
    The trigger that initiates the preparation of a flora and fauna assessment survey is:
    " Will the proposed development affect native vegetation or fauna habitat?" (p12)
    The test of significance (seven-part test – Sec 5A,EP&A Act 1979) is used to make an assessment of a development under Sec 79C, EP&A Act 1979 and to assess whether there is likely to be a significant affect on threatened species, populations, or ecological communities (Sec 78A (8), EP&A Act1979(p13)
    2.2.1
    Protected species are those referred to in the National Parks and Wildlife (NPW) Act 1974
    They include all native fauna (species not listed in Schedule 11, and not listed under the TSC Act 1995)
    A list of native and protected species is required in assessments as they provide information as to the type/s of vegetation communities and fauna habitats present within an area.(p17)
    Where there is some doubt as to whether there is likely to be a significant impact on threatened species, endangered ecological communities, or population, a precautionary approach will be adopted. (p22)

    Matters for Consideration Section 79C
    For flora and fauna surveys and assessments the relevant considerations include, but are not limited to, the following:
    •The likely impacts of the development on the maintenance of biodiversity such as:
    o Protection and management of critical habitats, ecological communities, threatened species, populations, or their habitats (including any PAS, Recovery Plans or Threat Abatement Plans).
    o Protection and management of protected species
    o Wildlife corridors and remnant vegetation
    o Disturbance to native fauna populations and habitats
    2.2.7.3
    ACTIVITIES (OR PART V MATTERS)
    These are works largely undertaken by or on the behalf of public authorities that are not exempt development but do not require development consent.
    These works or activities are assessed in a REF by either the proponent or a determining authority under Part V of the EP&A Act 1979.
    A wide range of activities may be covered by this part of the Act. Examples include infrastructure projects.
    The following issues of relevance to biodiversity are to be considered when assessing the likely impact of an activity on the environment (refer to Sec 228, EP&A Regulations 2000).
    These are to be addressed in flora and fauna (biodiversity) survey and assessments for activities.
    Any guidelines in force under the regulations and where no guidelines are in force:
    •Any environmental impact on the ecosystems of the locality
    •Any reduction in scientific or other environmental quality or value of a locality; any effect on a locality, place, or building having scientific or other special value for present or future generations
    •Any impact on protected fauna (within the meaning of the NPW Act 1974)
    Flora and fauna surveys and assessments for activities should be integrated with the review of environmental factors and all impacts on flora and fauna associated with the activity assessed. The documents should contain clear recommendations with respect to avoiding, eliminating, managing, or reducing the environmental impact of the activity.
    •Any endangering of any species of animal, plant or other form of life, whether living on land, in water, or in air
    •Any long-term impacts on the environment
    •Any degradation of the quality of the environment
    •Any risk to the safety of the environment
    •Any reduction in the range of beneficial uses of the environment

    The following is found at the end of 2.2.1 of LMCC Flora and Fauna Guidelines

    Note: Submissions from the public may raise biodiversity issues with respect to a development or rezoning proposal. These submissions may require the applicant to conduct further investigations.

  247. Lynden Jacobi commented

    Firstly I would like to say that just because there are fewer submissions against this development in subsequent calls for submissions does not mean that the locals are now happy with it. Many are not experienced with dealing with bureaucracies and are not paid for their time to read and reread legislation and after a while people lose heart. It seems that the developers can just stand their ground ceding nothing, working on the premise that eventually the little guy will give up.
    None of the issues I have originally raised regarding this overdevelopment have been dealt with. Not only that, the new plans although architecturally more appealing on paper, have not adhered to numerous guidelines set by the council and NSW government. It seems the wishy-washy term “merit” can be used and accepted as an excuse for any breaches.
    Some points that must be addressed are:
    • The height of the proposed buildings some of which are 1/3 again as high as LEP guidelines! There is a non-compliance with DCP1 and the LMLEP2014. The developer has been asked by the JRPP to amend the plans to change this and they have chosen to ignore most of their recommendations and believe that because their plan has “merit” they should be allowed to construct whatever they like. This is wrong and this development should not be allowed to go ahead. It is ridiculous to bow to developer pressure. We do not need to be “dragged” into the developer’s future plan where Whitebridge and other surrounding suburbs become high density. That is suitable for urban centres like Charlestown where there is access to decent public transport and infrastructure.
    • The density of this development in a neighbourhood centre, which was originally intended, when council voted on the rezoning, to support about 60 dwellings. They now propose 87 dwellings and 4 retail outlets! The JRPP requested the removal of dwellings 401 and 410 to provide greater building separation. The developer has said, “no”. They believe a 900mm setback is plenty. They have refused to implement the redesign required to A101, A102, A201, and A202 to make the maisonette apartments more liveable.
    • The lack of visitor parking. This issue has not been addressed and was not considered important by the JRPP even though the developer has admitted there is a shortfall. At one of the Whitebridge Community meetings Wade from SNL suggested that there is plenty of parking along Station Street! This is totally unacceptable. The council in agreeing to this proposal is worsening an existing problem.
    • The excess traffic and problems associated with this – gridlock at the roundabout and difficult entry to parking at shops, danger to pedestrians to name a few. For Wade to suggest there won’t be as many car movements “because kids can walk to school” is ludicrous. The only school within walking distance is Whitebridge High! What about the others who go to primary school and other high schools and childcare centres, after school activities and work? At the moment our bus service finishes in town at 10.20pm on weeknights, 9.50pm on Saturdays and 9.20pm on Sundays. They run about once an hour and it takes 45 minutes to get to town.
    • The lack of communal outdoor space. The development plans show a communal outdoor area but according to council guidelines, it is less than half the size that is required for a development of this size! The developer suggests it will be a communal gathering and play area, but the units on Lot 25 will own it. Who will be responsible for the insurance, play equipment, picnic tables etc? I cannot see any explanation or additional details, which the JRPP requested, in SNL’s amended plans.
    • The lack of consideration of the environmental zone, which includes a wildlife corridor. According to LEP guidelines “the objectives of this zone are to ensure that development proposals result in rehabilitation and conservation of environmentally important land.” I was shocked and dismayed that the JRPP refused to even acknowledge this as an issue at the meeting even with evidence of endangered Squirrel Gliders in the area.
    • The lack of an SIS along the wildlife corridor. The developer plans to cut down trees that are a vital link in the wildlife corridor. These are being cut down to allow extension of Kopa Street for access to one, yes, only ONE dwelling, Lot 23. Lots 21, 22, 23 and 24 should be removed from the plans. They will directly impact on the wildlife corridor. Through development in this area through the years we have managed to cause the local extinction of a variety of species including the swamp wallaby and the eastern grey kangaroo. In recent years we have come to acknowledge the importance of protecting those species that are left. Council was negligent in not doing a 7-part test and then requiring an SIS. The JRPP should insist on this before a decision is made on this development.

  248. Jane Moore commented

    1. I have concerns about the amount of traffic that already builds up on Dudley Road and Longs Avenue..
    2. I work at Birralee Long Daycare.. It is becoming difficult for parents to safely exit our car park with the amount of traffic already using Longs Avenue..An increase in traffic will only make this harder.
    3.A development of this size is not in keeping with the suburban appeal of the surrounding suburbs.
    4. Parking at the Whitebridge shopping Centre is already becoming difficult, without a development of this size adding to the conjestion.

  249. tory gearing commented

    The JRPP - yet another toothless bureaucratic entity wasting taxpayer money. Why bother putting token conditions on the development and trying to put on a show for the public when in reality you are either unwilling or powerless to even enforce these very minor conditions on this totally inappropriate overdevelopment?? JRPP, how about doing your job and justifying your existence by at least enforcing these very minor, token conditions that you put on a show with at the 1st meeting? Or on the other hand, just roll over ( like lmcc planning dept) and let SNL build whatever they want, which I suspect was always going to be the case.
    Regards

  250. Tracey Tutton commented

    I once again object to DA 1774/2013 in its current form. The real and important issues highlighted by members of the community have been ignored. These issues are outlined here below in my previous submission. I ask you refer, again, to this, since these are the issues that still exist. The development can not be approved in its current form, as the consequences will be disastrous, and permanent.

    I wish to object to DA 1774/2013 on Dudley Rd, Whitebridge.
    The density is too high. 91 dwellings is entirely out of character for the area, and indeed for ANY Neighbourhood Centre.The land was deemed suitable for 30-40 dwellings by LMCC when it was rezoned. This number is much more realistic and acceptable, and I believe there would not be community opposition against this number. To suggest more is pure opportunistic over-development.
    Considering the land along Lonus Avenue is not yet fully developed to its inevitable potential under the new zoning, the impact of this potential absolutely must be considered alongside this new development in regard to strains on the local infrastructure. The addition of probably 1000 car movements a day could be reasonably assessed as presenting the community with further congestion and safety issues.
    This development will substantially increase the danger for pedestrians in the Whitebridge area. I regularly walk, with my 1 year old daughter, to the shops and park. This possibility of accessing shops amenities without the need to drive was a strong drawcard for us in choosing to live in this area.
    I am also concerned about the noise pollution which will occur as a result of this increase in traffic AND of the dramatic increase in the number of people who will suddenly be living opposite us, in extremely close proximity. The level of noise as a result of the amount of cars, airconditioners, tvs, music, voices etc that
    will eminate from a development of that type will definitely have an adverse impact on the residents of Whitebridge.
    This development is in stark contrast to the family-friendly atmosphere of Whitebridge, which is another reason we chose this area in which to live. This type of development, which involves so many people living in such a confined area, promotes an unfamiliar and suspicious vibe, where residents can not easily know and become acquainted with other members of their community. It has a strong possibility of becoming an ”us” and ”them” mentality, whereby you live in ”the development” or you live in the ”normal” parts of the suburb. This will not support a cohesive community atmosphere and could breed tension and resentment.
    This development will look extremely out-of-place as Whitebridge is predominately single storey detached houses. To allow a development incorporating 4 storeys is irresponsible and inconsiderate to those who have already chosen to make Whitebridge their home.
    Change and progress is inevitable and necessary, but must be achieved in an appropriate manner.
    A development must be a positive addition to a suburb, NOT a detriment.
    I trust you will acknowledge our concerns and act accordingly.

    Tracey Tutton

  251. Nathan Tutton commented

    I strongly object to the development of Kopa Street/Dudley Road in its current form, as I have done 3 times previously, yet still the developer has not heard, or not listened. Now they have demonstrated they will not listen to the determining body, the JRPP, either. I sincerely hope that the JRPP does not become worn down by this developer, as I suspect is their intention. I would also like to add that, if there are less submissions this time, it is not due to an acceptance by the community of the new plan, but merely the natural loss in energy to continue fighting such a ’Goliath’ - people have jobs, family, houses and limited time. For the developers, this IS their job. Please, reject this development application.

    It is extremely disappointing and unfortunate that the most concerning issues highlighted by the community have not been addressed and that the development is still in this entirely unsatisfactory from.
    Traffic congestion will be a significant problem, especially along Lonus Avenue
    and at the roundabout, and especially during school drop-off and pick-up times, where there are already long delays.
    It seems very unreasonable that the only proposed entry and exit points for a
    development of that size is via Kopa Street, which links to Lonus Avenue, and Lonus
    Avenue is the street used for Whitebridge High School, Whitebridge Preschool in Tumpoa Street AND Birralee Long Day Care Centre. All of these also link to the roundabout.
    I feel very concerned about even walking with my one-year old daughter to the park if this development was to go ahead, and, in the future, walking to the preschool with the need to cross and walk along these roads if that level of traffic will be present. This seems very out-of-character to have this level of traffic attempting to move around a suburb.
    Additionally, it is already becoming very difficult at times, and dangerous, to turn from Station Street, where I live, on to Dudley Road due to the traffic passing though on its way to Redhead and Dudley. This will only worsen if the development attempting to
    accommodate such a high number of people was to go ahead.
    Dropping into the shops on your way home from work will become a thing of the past, as parking problems will inevitably arise as current parking places, of which there are already too few, will be taken over for the development. This will also place more pressure, traffic and congestion onto Dudley Road as people attempt to find parks there instead.
    The Fernleigh Track will also be affected, as it will lose a lot of its beauty and tranquility at this Whitebridge stop and will discourage cyclists, walkers and joggers from making Whitebridge shops and cafes their destination. This will adversley affect businesses in the area. The buildings need to be set way further back so as to not impose upon the experience of the Track.
    Finally, this development will look very unattractive and will not match its surroundings. It has the potential to become the embarrassment of Whitebridge, which will become known for its out-of-place development rather than for its pleasant, community vibe.
    I urge the deciding bodies to use common sense and forward thinking to ensure that
    the developer is made to consider the greater good and not purely profit from this amazing opportunity to develop the suburb of Whitebridge. Current and future residents deserve to be protected and considered to ensure a precedent is set that encourages quality and positive development of our area.

    Nathan Tutton

  252. Sarah Blatchford commented

    Dear Sir/Madam

    I wish to lodge an objection to the proposed development at Whitebridge (DA 1772-2013). I grew up in Whitebridge and still live in nearby Charlestown East (my parents still reside in Whitebridge). I regularly shop at the Whitebridge shops, use the Fernleigh Track, take my children to the Whitebridge park and visit family and friends in the area.

    The developer has clearly NOT adhered to any of the recommendations detailed by the JRPP.

    The excessive height of the dwellings does not integrate with the surrounding area or the desired future for Whitebridge.

    The excessive density is completely unsuitable to this small, quiet suburb. This will inevitably cause a variety of problems in this community - including the social impact, traffic dangers, environmental issues and the negative visual impact.

    The shopping area is already overcrowded and dangerous. The development does not provide adequate additional car parking. The addition of so many vehicles to the shopping area, roundabout and busy Kopa Street is dangerous. Based on the hundreds of complaints made by actual residents who live in the area, LMCC's traffic assessment is clearly wrong. The ongoing dangers to pedestrians in this small area are massive.

    It is well documented that areas housing highly dense dwellings suffer from higher crime rates, vandalism, and social problems. These dwellings have no yards, parks, personal space or areas for socialising. Residents, especially youths, will have no space to spend their time outdoors aside from the street and public areas.
    Whitebridge is a small suburb and, as such, has the amenities to cope with a small population. This over development would suit a larger suburb that has the transport, recreational activities, and services to cope.

    This development has been planned with no green space, aside from the mandatory corridor alongside the Fernleigh track. The conservation corrider is minimal and houses a storm water drain and other facilities. This is completely unacceptable for this bushland setting. This lack of green space is in complete contradiction to the bushy surrounds of the area, will radiate an enormous amount of heat, and will be an eyesore to the neighbourhood. These dwellings need to be built with personal green space for each residence and green space separating the dwellings. Ideally there should be communal space as well, such as a decent park or playground.

    Quantity over quality appears to have been a determining phrase during the planning of this development, however Whitebridge is a wonderful place to live and visit and is deserving of a development that will harmonise with the existing community and environment.

    I am disheartened that our local council has not acted in the best interests of the area or the community and I ask that the JRPP reject this DA and demand something of substance.

    I sincerely hope that these issues are taken into consideration,
    Sarah Blatchford

  253. Jill Mascord commented

    In light of the latest plan submitted by the developer, this DA must be entirely rejected due to non-compliance with JRPP conditions. This developer is wasting everyone’s time. Whilst it is important they make a profit, this cannot be at the cost of all other considerations. The environment, and the community, present and future, must factor equally when developing this land. I reiterate all of my previous objections as outlined in my 3 previous submissions as these concerns have not been addressed.

    DENSITY:
    92 dwellings and 4 storeys in Whitebridge? The developer has obviously taken no care to consider marrying this new development into the existing suburb. This is a grossover-development of the site. The majority of Whitebridge is single-storey, detached single-family homes. This development is not in keeping with the character of Whitebridge.
    TRAFFIC CONGESTION:
    I often use the Whitebridge shops as a convenient place to stop and shop. The addition of 92 dwellings will totally detract from the convenience of using Whitebridge shops, thus negatively impacting on business there.
    SAFETY:
    I feel concerned for safety if this development is approved. Safety will be an issue when using the shops and when crossing busy Dudley Road with my grandchildren. Additionally, I am concerned for my grandchildren’s future safety when they attend Whitebridge High as a result of traffic congestions and due to the possibility of an increase in crime and anti-social behaviour which is often associated with developments of this type.
    SOCIAL IMPACT:
    Whitebridge currently enjoys a relaxed, village atmosphere which is appropriate for an area accommodating a pre-school, long daycare centre, highschool, park, tennis courts and access to the Fenleigh Track. This village atmosphere will be severely compromised if this development is to go ahead in its current form as it is in stark contrast with the character of the suburb.
    ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS:
    ...or lack there of, on the part of the developer. Suggesting the environmental corridor be used to accommodate a thoroughfare between the Fernleigh Track and the shops is not what the community had in mind when they encouraged the developer to allow permeability through the site. It appears the developer would rather spend their time pretending to address issues rather than actually compromising on anything!
    Council has a responsibility to its current and future residents to not be intimidated by the persuasive powers of self-interested developers.
    I trust the deciding bodies will clearly see the lack of compliance with LMCC guidelines for development in a neighbourhood centre.

    Jill Mascord

  254. Maree Turner commented

    This continuous back and forth of submission writing is unbelievable. Minor adjustments to the original submission have been made however; the communities concerns have again been ignored. The original issues still exist.

    We are expecting our third child in November and will be continuing to walk to and from Whitebridge Preschool, Tumpoa Street and also Charlestown East Primary School next year. The current traffic congestion is difficult to navigate through and previously I had been timing my walks to preschool so I could cross the road safely with my two children. However, next year my son will be starting primary school which means that I will now become part of peak hour school traffic. I find it very hard to comprehend the impact this development will have on local crossings, footpaths and roads. I fear an accident will happen.

    The current form of the application still poses the same concerns and threats regarding environmental impact, pedestrian safety and overload of utilities. It is disappointing to witness the developer’s lack of compliance with conditions that were set by the JRPP. How many chances do the developers get? It’s a shame that the community and developers cannot work together to create a suitable application that can seriously be considered.

    I plan to be a resident of the Whitebridge community for a long time and raise my young family in this area. This complete disregard for community collaboration is disappointing. I hope my concerns and the broader communities can finally be considered.

  255. Laurie Mascord commented

    Re: DA/1774/2013

    I wish to once again object to this DA. Non-compliance with JRPP conditions and with LMCC planning guidelines must render this proposal unfit for approval.

    Objectives for land zoned 7(2) Conservation have not been met, and in fact, hugely infringed upon, and yet this infringement has not been addressed. The expert opinion regarding the seven-part-test for native fauna, as expressed to the JRPP, has not resulted in a precautionary approach being taken, even though this could easily be achieved. Infrastructure needed to support this number of new dwellings has not been considered or planned for. This will result in reduced safety for pedestrians, especially considering there is already a lack of suitable footpaths in the suburb, which deters people from walking and results in people driving the short distances. The height of the development is still excessive for the suburb, considering the number dwellings concentrated in the one area. The negative visual impact from the Fernleigh Track has not been addressed. The unnecessary removal of trees is a disgrace.

    It concerns and confuses me that our local council is so willing to accept so many non-compliances with their own planning guidelines. I would also like to point out that a reduction in submissions from the public after each new plan submitted by the developer DOES NOT indicate acceptance, but an understandable loss of motivation to keep up the fight when it is going on for so long, when people are so busy in their lives, and when there is little indication of the public's concerns being heard.

    This DA must be rejected in its current form.

    I attach below my previous submission to reiterate the issues that have still not been addressed.

    I wish to object to the current development proposal. It is entirely inappropriate for a NEIGHBOURHOOD centre, which is the classification of Whitebridge as assigned by LMCC.
    This DA reflects the guidelines for development in a REGIONAL centre.
    Density and Design/
    With a proposed 91 dwellings, this is a gross and opportunistic over-development of the site. SNL are proposing 54 dwellings per hectare, whereas LMCC Lifestyle 2030 stipulate 30-40 dwellings per hectare.
    The 7(2) conservation land should be excluded from any calculation. This type of development is entirely out of sync with a suburb of majority single-family housing.
    Section 2.7 of the Lake Macquarie City Council Development Control Plan No. 1 “deals with the need for development to respond to the Local Context by identifying desirable elements of its existing character that will contribute to the future character of an area.”
    (page 1) The proposed development does not incorporate any of the ‘desirable elements’ of Whitebridge, nor does it reflect its ‘existing character’.
    Environmental Impact/
    The 7(2) land should also remain independent from pathways enabling permeability through the site. The ecological corridor must be respected as important and irreplaceable for flora and fauna and should in no way be impacted by any development.
    Social Impact/ In their report on Increasing Density in Australia (2012), Giles-Corti, Ryan and Foster explain how environmental criminologists assert that safe neighbourhoods are characterised by greater land-use homogeneity, with less mixed-use development and more single-family housing. The proposed development is in opposition to these characteristics of safe neighbourhoods. Aestethically, the proposed development is imposing, shocking and unbefitting, not only for residents and shoppers, but for recreation-makers on the Fernleigh Track, which is one of the jewels in the crown of
    Newcastle and Lake Macquarie. The visual and atmospherical contrast between Whitebridge and the rest of the experience on the Fernleigh Track would be shameful.
    The request that developer’s contribution s94 be waived is unjustified. The ’urban space’ proposed on Dudley Rd is not something that was requested by, or even desired by,
    the community, due to its strong potential for anti-social behaviour. When one takes in
    to account the developer’s plan to use public land for parts of the project (Dudley Rd for the ’urban space’ and Kopa St for private driveway to Lot 23), this request becomes
    not only ’cheeky’, but blatantly disrespectful. Safety and Traffic Problems/
    A single entry/exit point, that being Kopa Street, for 92 dwellings will clearly cause tremendous changes in traffic conditions not only in Kopa Street, but on Lonus Avenue, and the roundabout via which most drivers access Lonus Avenue. The adjacent park, which is used regularly, the tennis courts and the oval will become much less-pleasant places to frequent. This will break down community ties. The traffic along Lonus Avenue will also put families of the Birralee Long Day Care Centre at risk. Students accessing
    Whitebridge High School by foot along Lonus will be placed in greater danger, and families accessing Whitebridge Preschool in Tumpoa Street will be negatively affected. It
    is already difficult and sometimes dangerous for buses using Lonus Ave to access the high school. Traffic along Dudley Rd will inevitably increase, which will increase the likli
    hood of accidents for people attempting to turn onto this road from side-streets. It is
    already hazardous to do so, as is it hazardous to walk the streets of Whitebridge, particularly when attempting to cross Dudley Rd. Considering the current
    insurge of young families, this is in opposition to the desired character of the area.
    General/
    IF this development is approved, a precedent will be set for land of this zoning to be developed in a similarly careless manner, thus putting more of our suburbs at risk of disaffection. Within Whitebridge, there exists massive potential for dramatic increases in density, due to the zoning of land on Kopa Street and Lonus Avenue. In other words, these problems have the potential to become even bigger. A careful, predictive view is needed to ensure this suburb grows at a manageable rate. The community of Whitebridge and surrounding suburbs have clearly, confidently and justifiably stated
    their lack of support for this project. This must have weight against the self-gratifying intentions of a developer. Residents have communicated an understanding and acceptance of the inevitability of the site being developed; it is the nature of this development which is being rejected. An appropriate development which adds value to the community and which reflects the spirit and regulations of the governing council
    would be embraced.
    Laurie Mascord

  256. Philip Carter commented

    The trivial adjustments to the proposed over-development for Whitebridge do not go anywhere near to satisfying the community concerns about density and traffic.
    Whitebridge is more of a village with a handful of shops, than it is a fully-fledged town and to refer to the development as being proposed in the context of a “town centre” and to compare it to development in the Charlestown CBD seems disingenuous and is grossly misleading.
    The developer acknowledges their proposed development would be out of character for the area but excuses it on the grounds that it would mark a “beachhead,” or more appropriately a “bridgehead,” or some such term, for future development in the area.
    Who says developers get to decide what is best for an area? Who says council guidelines, recommendations, and community expressions of interest are so irrelevant that land can be purchased on the insolent assumption that they can be over-ridden and zoning changed to suit developers? Is town planning being privatised?
    I will not go so far as to allege this particular over-development is tainted with corruption, but in the context of the ongoing ICAC’s revelations (Operation Spicer) , and the persons named there (including the principal developer in this case), I will say it is not a good look.
    Any development on the site should be limited to about forty dwellings, in keeping with the area.

  257. Brenda Carter commented

    The trivial adjustments to the proposed over-development for Whitebridge do not go anywhere near to satisfying the community concerns about density and traffic.
    Whitebridge is more of a village with a handful of shops, than it is a fully-fledged town and to refer to the development as being proposed in the context of a “town centre” and to compare it to development in the Charlestown CBD seems disingenuous and is grossly misleading.
    The developer acknowledges their proposed development would be out of character for the area but excuses it on the grounds that it would mark a “beachhead,” or more appropriately a “bridgehead,” or some such term, for future development in the area.
    Who says developers get to decide what is best for an area? Who says council guidelines, recommendations, and community expressions of interest are so irrelevant that land can be purchased on the insolent assumption that they can be over-ridden and zoning changed to suit developers? Is town planning being privatised?
    I will not go so far as to allege this particular over-development is tainted with corruption, but in the context of the ongoing ICAC’s revelations (Operation Spicer) , and the persons named there (including the principal developer in this case), I will say it is not a good look.
    Any development on the site should be limited to about forty dwellings, in keeping with the area.

  258. Leigh Donegan commented

    To whom it may concern, RE: DA 1774/2013

    I would like to resubmit my previous submissions, objecting to this development application.

    I am a resident of Whitebridge, myself and my young family’s property backs onto the Fernleigh track about 100m from this proposed development site.
    We frequently use the Whitebridge shop area and our children attend the local school.
    We are deeply concerned about the density of this development and the ability for the local infrastructure to cope.
    We understand that this land needs to be developed, but the number of dwellings and the building heights proposed for this site would certainly make it inconsistent with the surrounding area.
    My understanding is that the density of this development is not consistent with what LMCC planned when they rezoned this land.
    I believe the development storm water facilities and roads should not intrude into the conservation land. The conservation land is there for a reason.
    Users of the Fernleigh track need to be able to access the Whitebridge Shops in a safe manner without having to cross the narrow bridge and busy roads.
    It’s often very difficult to get a park at the Whitebridge shops and this often causes the roundabout to come to a standstill as people are waiting for parks. If this development is to go ahead in its current form I'm concerned the shop area will be used as overflow for resident parking due to the large number of proposed dwellings, not to mention the extra traffic trying to access the shops via the single entry causing more bottle necks at the roundabout.
    One way in and one way out via Kopa St for 91 dwellings onto an already congested road is going to further compound the problem at the roundabout as mentioned in the above paragraph.

    Kind Regards,

    Leigh Donegan

  259. Kylie Pheils commented

    I hereby resubmit my prior submissions. The public is not being heard, experts are not being heard and now the JRPP is not being heard. This DA should not be approved.
    The height along Dudley Rd of 16 metres, 4-storeys, is entirely in opposition to the village atmosphere of Whitebridge, not to mention being well above the height limits as stipulated by LMCC. It will lessen the experience of shopping and frequenting the cafés on the shopping strip.
    The number of dwellings is entirely too high and indicates an opportunistic attitude on behalf of the developer. LMCC indicated the land was appropriate for 40-50 dwellings (even less considering that took into account land on the other side of Kopa Street) and the community agrees with this figure as being appropriate.
    Using the environmental corridor to achieve permeability of the site is a perfect example of the lack of good intention on the part of the developer.
    This development must be suitable for the area and enhance the suburb. Currently, Whitebridge is at risk of becoming a suburb of social unrest and discontent.
    To allow this development to go ahead would be irresponsible and would demonstrate that our council and decision makers are not responding to the community, but only to the developer's commercial interests as it is certainly not in the interests of the suburb of Whitebridge.
    regards
    Kylie Pheils

  260. Kylie Pheils commented

    I restate all my previous objections to this development in its current form and emphasize once again that this is NOT an appropriate development for this suburb, and nor will it be even in 20 years. This parcel of land is too big to develop in this manner, as it will never gel with the rest of the suburb. The blatant disregard of the developer for the rulings of the JRPP is indicative of the lack of respect they have shown the community during this process. This DA must now be rejected.

    The height along Dudley Rd of 16 metres, 4-storeys, is entirely in opposition to the village atmosphere of Whitebridge, not to mention being well above the height limits as stipulated by LMCC. It will lessen the experience of shopping and frequenting the cafés on the shopping strip.
    The number of dwellings is entirely too high and indicates an opportunistic attitude on behalf of the developer. LMCC indicated the land was appropriate for 40-50 dwellings (even less considering that took into account land on the other side of Kopa Street) and the community agrees with this figure as being appropriate.
    Using the environmental corridor to achieve permeability of the site is a perfect example of the lack of good intention on the part of the developer.
    This development must be suitable for the area and enhance the suburb. Currently, Whitebridge is at risk of becoming a suburb of social unrest and discontent.
    To allow this development to go ahead would be irresponsible and would demonstrate that our council and decision makers are not responding to the community, but only to the developer's commercial interests as it is certainly not in the interests of the suburb of Whitebridge.

    Kylie Pheils

  261. Jane Kerrigan commented

    (I have tried to be polite, concise and to the point. I am frustrated that I am writing yet again. Please also refer to my previous correspondences)

    I object.

    I object for a number of different reasons.

    Firstly, because I am being made to state my reasons, for the fourth? time. Why hasn't anyone taken my previous reasons seriously? I gave my thoughts deliberation, discussed them with others and thought them reasonable. Obviously, they were dismissed because I am, yet again, trying to convey the frustration I have with the unreal nature of this project.

    Again, I agree that some sort of development for this site is a good idea.

    And again, I disagree. The density proposed is ludicrous.

    What is the break down of residences of 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom, 3 bedroom, 4 bedroom, 4 bedroom plus a study? NO ONE has answered this question. The team including the Developer and Architect have admitted they have no control over who buys into the development or for what purpose - This is out of their control - owner occupier or rental/ investment, or even on behalf of the government for public housing.

    I'm not a real estate agent, but I can guarantee that 4 person families needing a home require a minimum of 3 bedrooms. I have 2 children and a 2 bedroom home - in a free standing residence....it's barely tolerable. Shunt 87 families into this development and it will be all out war. Especially when they become teenagers.

    Oh, you may say I'm being naive or supercilious making that statement....it won't all be families...and why is that? Because families can't live in one bed apartments, two bed apartments....mix it with rental public housing families, teenagers, middle aged folk with social problems...the picture just gets better.

    The Project (shall we call it) was initiated with a cut and paste, paste, paste, paste, paste, paste, paste, paste design....no thought, no consideration. It wasn't until the Developer was required to engage an architect that any actual element of design was included, no matter how poor and evasive.

    Then the marvellous billboard appeared, advising the community that Hilton had already paid off the NSW Government, so it was a done deal.

    "The Architect" was brought on board, after it was floated through council with flimsy square metrages and dodgy landscaping.

    "The Architect" with his "local credentials" of being brought up somewhere in the "way out west of Newcastle near the expressway prior to BHP leaving", has an opinion on what is good for Whitebridge in 2015 and the next 200 years to follow. Paid for by the Developer, an Architect can have many opinions.

    The merits of The Project were assessed by a reduced number of players in the JRP Panel...One member is personally affiliated with an Architectural/ Development Company within the Hunter Valley, and must feel the pain of the Developer acutely. Why would he make it difficult for any other Developer, when his own company is likely to suffer the same scrutiny?

    The Developer used as part of his justification to keep ploughing on, the observation that there are ever diminishing objections to The Project, so therefore, people must now be in agreement.

    Let it be known, that the original objections still stand! NO ONE has changed their mind. Intelligent people are assuming that intelligent people are assessing the impact this project will have. If the objection has been made, it still stands.

    It's not only the need to keep reminding all and sundry of the failings of this project which is making people weary. It is the constant incredulity felt that a total stranger to the area can lumber on in and overlay his or her 'vision' for the area. With money as his justification.

    In Winston Hills, in the suburban north west of Sydney, the JRPP has knocked a development on the head because it is not inkeeping with the local character of the area. The development proposed is smaller than the Whitebridge proposal, in an area more densely inhabited, with heavier traffic. WHERE IS THE CONSISTENCY?

    The proposed development for Whitebridge is Wrong, Wrong, Wrong for the site, the amenity, the environmental effect, the lack of good and proper engineering, the lack of good and proper architecture. The JRPP should be ashamed of their flimsy list of grievances.

    Cut it back, make it work. We are a small neighbourhood, not a Town Centre or a Hub, or whatever other fancy nomenclature you choose. There are no services to support an additional 87 'families', 180 cars etc.

    THIS IS WRONG. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? I OBJECT.

  262. Carmen Kolisnyk commented

    1th September, 2015 Carmen Kolisnyk
    10 Hudson Street,
    Whitebridge, NSW, 2290

    The General Manager,
    Lake Macquarie City Council,
    PO Box 1906
    Hunter Region Mail Centre
    NSW 2310.

    Re: DA 1774/2013
    Address: 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street, Whitebridge. NSW 2290.
    Applicant's Name: SNL Building Constructions Pty. Ltd.
    Sir/Madam,

    In reference to the above application I would like to voice my deep concerns in regards to the amended development of this site. I strongly object to this over development by SNL.

    As most of my previous concerns in my last two submissions, which are still relevant, have not been addressed, there is no need to go over them again. The following concerns are in addendum:
    TRAFFIC IMPACT

    No plans for any road upgrades to the current road system indicates an increase in the gridlock situation our area is feeling now! Will it get better!? I doubt it! Council’s response seems to indicate a reluctance to listen to the broader community. An independent study needs to be performed.
    There might be 3 more commercial shops along Dudley Rd. Will this ease congestion? Parking on Dudley Rd is already dangerous at intermittent times. There is the potential for hundreds of extra cars generated from this DA and the obvious outcome of this is increased danger to cyclists, road users and pedestrians. This is avoidable and inexcusable.
    ‘Community consultation’ by SNL do not take into account local knowledge of the residents nor do they take into account the existing nature of the area, preschool, shops, church, services and an increasing pedestrian/cycle zone.

    SOCIAL IMPACT

    IP, Integrated Planning, advise that the proposed density is 42 dwelling per hectare and this is higher than that suggested (30-40) for the regional centre of Charlestown. Whitebridge has one of the highest rates of Development in Lake Macquarie now. If the initial proposal was more appropriate with the surrounding area it should be possible to increase the supply of housing in the area by developing this site without excessive development.
    This ’Development’ if accepted will undoubtedly create a precedent in similar zoned areas which is not what the majority of residents want. A density, of 91 dwellings and 3 commercial units is not consistent with the LEP 2014 planning at the time of rezoning, which stated an approx. max. of 40 dwellings for the site. As it stands the development is undesirable and inappropriate/unsustainable. It detracts rather than adds to our neighbourhood.
    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

    The environmental zone now has a road carriageway, footpath and stormwater basins designed into it. The encroachment into this zone decreases the green corridors ability to rejuvenate. The residential zone needs to be scaled back to a reasonable density.

    The amount of permeable land on the site has been drastically reduced and in the event of a 100 yr. storm surge or the like I would be greatly concerned with storm water discharge onto Fernleigh Track which has the potential to pollute and degrade the Glenrock watershed. With climate change upon us has this been taken into account?

    This is unacceptable at a Community level and is totally contrary to the intentions set forth in the rezoning at Amendment 53 and in the Objectives for this zone under the LEP.

    BUILDING DESIGN

    With the staging of the development a 2-3 yr. time limit is unacceptable and will lead to further noise aggravation and traffic chaos.

    The bulky and aggressive nature of the build design is unavoidable wherever you look. The 14m height along Dudley Rd is a travesty, SNL have exceeded the allowable distance by almost 3m.

    The private driveway off Kopa St for unit 23 leaves no room for additional am driveway on the north side of Kopa st under lot 3. How can this be justified?

    Progress is necessary for any community to advance and grow - but this ‘progress’ should
    never be at the expense of the existing community. I urge the LMCC and the JRPP to please uphold the communities needs and wishes, this is our life and community you’re playing with.

    Yours Sincerely
    Carmen Kolisnyk

  263. Douglas Kolisnyk commented

    Doug Kolisnyk
    10 Hudson Street
    Whitebridge 2290
    1/09/2015
    Lake Macquarie City Council
    The General Manager
    PO Box 1906
    Hunter Region Mail Centre 2310

    Dear Sir/Ma’am,
    Re: DA number: 1774/2013
    Address: 142-146 Dudley Rd and 2-4 Kopa St, Whitebridge, 2290
    Applicant’s name: SNL Building Constructions Pty Ltd

    As the community’s concerns, and now the JRPP’s directives, have not been addressed, I would like to resubmit my previous submission. The developer’s lack of compliance and lack of respect for the decision of the deciding body, the JRPP, should result in the rejection of this DA.
    I have been a resident of Whitebridge for 25 years, I wish to register my opposition to the proposed development at 142-146 Dudley Rd and 2-4 Kopa St, Whitebridge.
    I have referred to the proposal’s Visual Impact Assessment (VIA), MSB-Conditional Approval, SNL’s DA Documents. REFERRAL RESPONSE IP – Strategic Planning.
    My concerns regarding this development are stated in my previous submissions. The following addendum highlights further concerns:
    SOCIAL IMPACT:
    The East Lake Intensification Corridor illustrated in a schematic map in the Lifestyle 2030 document shows the corridor along the highway from Charlestown to Belmont. Whitebridge is on the periphery of the zone. Council state there is no detailed map of the Zone which SNL greatly rely on in their final version of this DA. Therefore SNL’s use of this zone should be reinvestigated or dismissed.

    The existing infrastructure (roads, car parking, pre-schools) are at capacity and will not cope easily with the sudden increase in population and traffic. The suburb is poorly serviced by Government buses. People will need to travel to Charlestown for many services including banking, the post office. Charlestown is more than a 10 minute walk from this site.

    Integrated Planning advise that the proposed density is 42 dwelling per hectare and this is higher than that suggested as reasonable (30-40) for the regional centre of Charlestown. It should be possible to increase the supply of housing in the area by developing this site without excessive development. The lengthy planning process which has occurred could have been avoided if the initial proposal was more compatible with the surrounding area and sensitive to the adjacent environmental corridor.
    There are also many inconsistencies with Lifestyle 2030 which have been outlined in detail in previous submissions.

    SNL’s table which “identifies development applications that were reviewed when informing the design process”. (Ref. SNL letter to LMCC, 23rd February, 2015)

    The examples provided by SNL support our argument that the proposal is totally inconsistent with the emerging character of the area, and therefore out of character even with the so-called “desired future” of Whitebridge.
    This proposal, with a net density of 54 dwellings per hectare, as stated on the architectural plans, is a massive overdevelopment of the site, and it does not fit with the existing character of the area or the desired future. The other recent developments referred to by SNL achieve the objective of increasing density in the area without having a devastating visual impact. (Ref LMCC Scenic Management Guidelines). They have not become the “dominant feature of the scene”, even those with a density over 40 dwellings per hectare, as shown in the table. The proponent should be required to comply with LMCC legislative and procedural guidelines.

    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

    The Community is entitled to ask why the DA has abused the area set aside for conservation and obviously part of the reason is that the proposed density of the development means that given the area of the site that is to be covered with buildings, roadways, paved surfaces is excessive it is essential to at least give token recognition that drainage and storm water issues need to be addressed. The DA demonstrates that the proposal has zero respect for the original rezoning reservations and this in turn may have ultimately devastating consequences for the Fernleigh Track (significant heritage, and community leisure/ transport resource) and the entire strip of conservation zoned lands adjoining the Track right down to the local government boundaries of Lake Macquarie and Newcastle.

    Encroachment of the proposed development on the adjoining conservation zoned land is in direct contravention of State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP19) that legislates that the purpose of Conservation zoning is protect plant and animal communities, wild life corridors and habitat. Many of the Community submissions in relation to the first two versions of this DA have indicated the vital importance of this particular parcel in contributing to that objective. It has been ignored by the Applicant in each revision and ultimately abused by the encroachment intended to facilitate development beyond that which is acceptable to the Community.
    The 20m wide conservation zone, as well as having pathways, stormwater basins and some
    limited planting of native trees, also has almost half of the road width of Street C, and its
    kerbside parking within this zone. The effective width of this 20m conservation zone, left for
    planting of native trees is reduced to 6-8m.

    DESIGN:
    Landcom define medium density as 20-40 dw/ha net, LS2030 use an example of 30-40
    dwellings per hectare as being appropriate for the regional centre of Charlestown.
    The density of this development is 45 dw/ha net. This puts the development in the high
    density range which is totally inappropriate. The “terrace-style townhouses along Kopa St” and through the rest of the site (Lots 2, 3, 4&1) are in fact classed as residential flat buildings, as such they should have been assessed under SEPP65.

    The proposed development on Dudley Rd, is actually one building with two sections linked
    by a partially underground car park. The portion of the car park linking the two sections is partially above ground. Therefore the “two buildings” are in fact one. This is a misleading fabrication by SNL which contravenes MSB requirement of building mass being less than 40 m in total length when in fact it’s double this amount.

    The “existing power poles on the opposite side of Dudley Road (estimated to be approximately 12m high)” are 10.5m, 11.2 and 11.8m. The new building is 14m high, a difference of over 2m, so is a full storey over the height of the shortest pole. The “existing two storey shops also on the opposite side of Dudley Road” are 7.6 and 8m high (2 storeys). The proposed buildings are 6 metres higher, a full 2 storeys higher not “an estimated 3m”.
    The “existing Whitebridge Cellars building is approximately 6m high”, this is the only
    correct reference point given, when measured to the top of the parapet. The flag poles do not
    add to perceived height. The LEP Dictionary specifically excludes the use of flagpoles when
    measuring the height of a building (pg. 59). The proposed building is a full 3 storeys higher,
    and 8m higher than the top of the parapet, not “5m”. As stated in the VIA, it is “immediately
    next to Whitebridge Cellars”, and this would accentuate the sizable height difference.
    The height of the existing Camphor Laurel tree is not given, but has been measured at 10m.
    The building would be 4m higher, not the stated “2m higher”. Therefore Section 4.2 highlights how the VIA relies on incorrect, approximate estimates. This then makes all observations and statements based on them questionable.

    Several of the artist’s impressions in SNL’s VIA are flawed, as the proposed buildings are
    obviously not to scale, or in some cases these impressions are not provided from certain
    important viewpoints.

    TRAFFIC IMPACT:

    We understand that the developer, SNL, greatly relies on this unrefined interpretation (East Lake Intensification Corridor) of the map in their final version of this DA. When read in conjunction with maps for Movement Systems it is noted that there is no major road network supporting intensification. Since the abandonment of the East Charlestown Bypass and the axing of discussion related to the extension of Waran Rd, there has been no strategic intent offered to suggest how to strengthen the road system to deal with intensification in this immediate area. Predictions that the roundabout at the intersection of Dudley Rd, Bulls Garden Rd, Lonus Ave and Waran Rd will fail in the near future if predicted growth occurs will only be exacerbated if medium density rates in Neighbourhood Centres with little elasticity and no capacity for extending infrastructure have this level of density imposed on them.

    Existing infrastructure such as roads, car parking, pre-schools are at capacity and will not cope efficiently with the sudden and concentrated increase in population and traffic, despite assurances to the contrary provided by the developer. The suburb is poorly serviced by Government buses and no anticipated change in service has been suggested. People will need to travel to Charlestown for many services including banking, the post office, medical specialists etc. Charlestown the nearest transport hub is at least a 30 minute walk from this site. .
    Conclusion:
    I respectfully request, that both Council and the JRPP reject the application as offered and suggest a significant downsizing of the proposal to accord with the initial projection of 40 dwellings at the time this land was rezoned.
    Integrate the development into the community and scale back to a density which can be accommodated into the environment and supporting infrastructures of our neighbourhood centre.
    I further suggest the need for integrity and quality in the design of the development and the reinstatement of permeability through the site to maintain the historic and public interest in this land.

  264. Greg Boundy commented

    21 Railway Street
    Dudley, 2290
    1/09/2015

    Lake Macquarie City Council
    The General Manager
    PO Box 1906
    Hunter Region Mail Centre,2310

    Greg Boundy

    I am a resident of Dudley and have many concerns about the development proposed for 142-146 Dudley Road & 2-4 Kopa Street, Whitebridge,2290.DA No. 1774/2013

    As most of my previous concerns in my last two submissions, which are still relevant, have not been addressed, there is no need to go over them again. The following concerns are additional:

    TRAFFIC

    As there are no indications of any road upgrades to the current road system i fail to see how the gridlock situation will get better! Council’s response seems to bolster SNL’s study, how is this so? Why wasnt an independant study performed?

    There might be 3 more commercial shops along Dudley Rd. Will this ease congestion? Parking on Dudley Rd is already difficult. There is the potential for hundreds of extra cars generated from this DA. I find this totally unacceptable.
    The obvious outcome of this is increased danger to cyclists, road users and pedestrians.

    SNL do not take the knowledge of the residents on board nor do they take into account the nature of the area, preschool, shops, church, services and an increasing pedestrian/cycle zone.

    The increased traffic will also generate more fine particulate and Co2 during construction and in the future, again not acceptable. Go back to the drawing board.

    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

    Changes to the environmental zone now include an encroachment by over 6m of a road carriageway, footpath and 3 stormwater basins. The green corridor between Glenrock State Park and adjoining bushland will be severely depleted when building is allowed in this zone. The residential zone should have these facilities not the environmental zone, which is also an asset protection zone for bush fires protection which means limited planting of flora in this area, further compounding the regeneration issues.

    This new proposal ignores the ecological importance of the green corridor connecting Glenrock State Consevation Area and the Awabakal Nature Reserve.

    Issues regarding storm water runoff onto Fernleigh Track and the potential for degredation of the Glenrock watershed have not been fully addressed, not good enough!

    SOCIAL IMPACT

    SNL’s mandate seems to be one of total disregard for the community in large, so much for ’community consultation’. Their remark of the proposal ’being consistent with the emerging character of Whitebridge’ is utter nonsense and spin generated by underlings doing the bidding of magnates. The majority of residents have no desire for ’their’ vision of the future. Density issues are the problem here. Size of the estate is inconsistent withe the surrounding area and doesn’t maintain the residential amenity.The site should have no more than 40 dwellings as stated in LEP 2004 Draft Amendment 53.

    BUILDING DESIGN

    With the developement being staged over 2-3 yrs this will only contribute to increased noise levels, traffic congestion and possibly pollution from construction runoff.

    After reading SNL report their comment ” we will get used to the buildings and the trees will eventually camouflage them” is a ludicrous patronizing statement and unacceptable.

    In SNL’s VIA they’ve shown trees along Dudley Rd. That A) are too high B)don’t exist on the landscape plan C) positioned in parking areas!! This makes a complete mockery of their assertions. SNL’s own remarks state
    ” There are four viewpoints where the impact has been assessed as severe”. Their proposed 2-4 storey bulky and imposing structures will be devestating from most views. This again is not WORLD CLASS DESIGN , only a developer wishing to Maximize his Yield.

    There will also be a private driveway built at the end of Kopa St. For Unit 23! What happens to the residence’s on the north side of Kopa St if they need a road entrance in the future? Why should the developer get preliminary say when it involves a public throughfare? Seems money talks!

    This ’Developement ’ should it go ahead will undoubtedly set a precedent in similar zoned areas which is not the desired future that the majority of residents want. The density of 91 dwellings and 3 commercial units is not consistent with the LEP 2014 planning at the time of rezoning. Whilst development is desirable and inevitable, it must be appropriate and sustainable development that contributes to, not detracts from, our neighbourhoods.

    Council must consider not only the residents of Whitebridge, but also the residents of the greater area who will be negatively affected if the development goes ahead in its proposed form. I urge the Council and JRPP to use common sense in their approach and ask the Developement be redesigned to 40 dwellings.

    Thank You.

  265. John Mcdougall commented

    21/120 Redhead Rd
    Redhead, NSW, 2290
    1/09/2015

    Lake Macquarie City Council
    The General Manager
    PO Box 1906
    Hunter Region Mail Centre,2310

    John Mcdougall

    I am a resident of Dudley and I strongly oppose the proposed development at 142-146 Dudley Road & 2-4 Kopa Street, Whitebridge,2290.
    DA No. 1774/2013.

    As the DA in question has increased in density and height my previous submissions and concerns still stand. Included below are my added concerns.

    Along Dudley Rd the mixed-use structure will be immediately noticable as it looms out of context with the existing business units. The top parapet on the bottle shop is approx. 6m and the proposed height of the mixed use building is almost 14m. How can this be an advantage to the community. SNL remark of their proposal ’being consistent with the emerging character of Whitebridge is ludicrous spin.

    The length of time this construcion will take will impact on the adjoining and surrounding residences for possibly years. This again is totally unacceptable in a Neighbourhood Centre.

    The density which is being proposed is inconsistent with the planning involved when LMCC rezoned the land.

    Endangered species such as the sugar glider will be under further pressure due to SNL using the environmental zone for a shared pathway, storm water management basins and swales and also part of the internal roadway. This is in direct contradiction of LEP 2014. As this zone is in an APZ there will be fewer tree plantings further compounding the rehabilitation of the area.

    As there is only one egress along Kopa St. I fail to understand how both the council and SNL whitewash the fact that this increase in traffic is not an issue. Both these parties have stated that there are existing pressures on parking and at the roundabout and with no suggestion or expectations of any road upgrades this will lead to further gridlock and inflamed behaviour.

    I urge the council to please use common sense in their approach to this developement, it’s our lives and our future at hand.

    Thank you.

  266. Keith Kolisnyk commented

    11 Goulbourn Street
    Dudley, 2290
    1/09/2015

    Lake Macquarie City Council
    The General Manager
    PO Box 1906
    Hunter Region Mail Centre,2310

    Keith Kolisnyk

    I am a resident of Dudley and am deeply concerned about the proposed development of 142-146 Dudley Road & 2-4 Kopa Street, Whitebridge,2290.
    DA No. 1774/2013

    Please refer to my previous submissions as all of my concerns (which haven’t been addressed) including concerns stated below, still apply.

    SAFETY:
    I feel concerned for safety if this development is approved. Safety will be an issue when using the shops and when crossing busy Dudley Road. Additionally, I am concerned for local children’s future safety when they attend Whitebridge High as a result of traffic congestions and due to the possibility of an increase in crime and anti-social behaviour which is often associated with developments of this type.

    TRAFFIC CONGESTION:
    I often use the Whitebridge shops as a convenient place to stop and shop. It has increasingly become harder to find parking since the erection of the fence around the proposed development site. The addition of 87 dwellings will totally detract from the convenience of using Whitebridge shops, thus negatively impacting on business there.

    DENSITY:
    This is a gross over-development of the site. The majority of Whitebridge is single-storey, detached single-family homes. This development is not in keeping with the character of Whitebridge.

    SOCIAL IMPACT:
    Whitebridge currently enjoys a relaxed, village atmosphere which is apprpriate for an area accommodating a pre-school, long daycare centre, highschool, park, tennis courts and access to the Fenleigh Track. This village atmosphere will be severely compromised if this development is to go ahead in its current form as it is in stark contrast with the character of the suburb.

    PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS:
    As a resident of Dudley, I am extremely concerned about the even wider implications this development will have on the land once ear-marked for the ’East Charlestown Bypass’. If this type of development is approved for Whitebridge, we may be faced with the same unsavoury concept in Dudley, as will the residents of suburbs along that entire environmental corridor.

    Council has a responsibility to its current and future residents to ensure appropriate, quality developments in its suburbs.

  267. Margaret Mcdougall commented

    21/120 Redhead Rd
    Redhead, NSW, 2290
    1/09/2015

    Lake Macquarie City Council
    The General Manager
    PO Box 1906
    Hunter Region Mail Centre,2310

    Margaret Mcdougall:

    I am a resident of Dudley and I strongly oppose the proposed development at 142-146 Dudley Road & 2-4 Kopa Street, Whitebridge,2290.
    DA No. 1774/2013.

    Please refer to my previous submissions as all of my concerns (which haven’t been addressed) including concerns stated below, still apply.

    The build height of almost 14 m is completely out of context with the surrounding 2 storey design of new buildings.

    Staging of the developement raises concerns over noise pollution, increased traffic congestion. After reading SNL report their comment ” we will get used to the buildings and the trees will eventually camouflage them” is a ludicrous patronizing statement and unacceptable.

    This ’Developement ’ should it go ahead will undoubtedly set a precedent in similar zoned areas which is not the desired future that the majority of residents want. The density of 91 units is not consistent with the LEP 2014 planning at the time of rezoning.

    The environmental zone has a road carriageway, footpath and stormwater basins situated on it as well. How is a green corridor between Glenrock State Park and adjoining bushland expected to regenerate/rejuvenate when building is allowed in this zone. The residential zone should have these facilities not the environmental zone, which is also an asset protection zone for bush fires protection which means limited planting of flora in this area.

    This new proposal ignores the ecological importance of the green corridor connecting Glenrock State Consevation Area and the Awabakal Nature Reserve.

    Kopa St has the only egress for vehicles from the 91 dwellings. One issue I have is SNL wanting to build a driveway and two parking spaces for Lot 23 dwelling on Council land. I would much prefer Kopa Street to be extended to the Twenty metre conservation boundary so that Lot 1,(vacant lot below Lot 3) North side of Kopa St. and SNL land, South side of Kopa St. equally have driveway access to the land.

    This is a gross over-development of the site with total disregard for the current streetscape and street character of the area. No attempt has been made to integrate the development with the current surroundings. Please do not acceopt this DA in its current form.

    Thank You.

  268. Mrs. Mearns E. Hall commented

    1st September, 2015 Mrs. Mearns E. Hall
    84 Lonus Ave,
    Whitebridge, NSW, 2290

    The General Manager,
    Lake Macquarie City Council,
    PO Box 1906
    Hunter Region Mail Centre
    NSW 2310.

    Re: DA 1774/2013, Amended Plans
    Address: 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street, Whitebridge. NSW 2290.
    Applicant's Name: SNL Building Constructions Pty. Ltd.
    Dear Sir/Madam,

    Please refer to my previous submissions as all of my concerns (which haven’t been addressed) including concerns stated below, still apply.
    In regards to the amended plans by SNL to council, they do not seem to have addressed even the first concerns by the community. I am still very concerned there is still only one exit/entry point in the subdivision by vehicles on Kopa Street. I am concerned still about the corner of Lonus Ave. and Kopa St., where I live, as the traffic will bottlenecked further, especially when Whitebridge High School is starting and finishing. It’s dangerous enough now.

    Most of the original concerns about the development are still there. No need to go over them again. They are in the first two submissions I wrote.

    One issue I have is SNL wanting to build a driveway and two parking spaces for Lot 23 dwelling on Council land. I would much prefer Kopa Street to be extended to the Twenty metre conservation boundary so that Lot 1,(vacant lot below Lot 3) North side of Kopa St. and SNL land, South side of Kopa St. equally have driveway access to the land.

    The environmental zone has a road carriageway, footpath and stormwater basins situated on it as well. How is a green corridor between Glenrock State Park and adjoining bushland expected to regenerate/rejuvenate when building is allowed in this zone. The residential zone should have these facilities not the environmental zone, which is also an asset protection zone for bush fires protection which means limited planting of flora in this area.

    The size of this development needs to be halved and kept within height limits.

    Progress is necessary for any community to advance and grow - but this ‘progress’ should
    never be at the expense of the existing community.

    Yours Sincerely
    Mrs. M. E. Hall

  269. Natalie Van Dyck commented

    I would like to again object to this over development in the suburb of Whitebridge.

    The development is excessive in height. It is too dense. More open space and environmental considerations should be taken into account.

    This corridor of land is needed to allow animals to have safe passage in an urbane environment.

    The appearance of this development will clash with existing houses and smaller developments in the immediate environment .

    There is not enough parking at the shops and the traffic is congested and dangerous In this area already.

    Parking is needed for Fernleigh track.

  270. Sylvie Jacobi-McCarthy commented

    The revised plans for this development have not been suitably altered to address the concerns raised by residents from Whitebridge or residents from surrounding suburbs who will also be effected.
    I oppose the development plans for 89 dwellings in Whitebridge. This proposed development would result in a jarring change to density that would have negative repercussions for the whole community, new residents included. The residents of Whitebridge want a development that is of merit to our community.

    Additionally, I have viewed the plans and this development ignores the ecological importance of the green corridor bordering the Fernleigh Track that runs between Glenrock State Conservation Area and the Awabakal Nature Reserve. This is symptomatic of a disregard for the value of this space not only to Whitebridge community, but for the biodiversity of this whole area.

    I understand that the JRPP stipulated certain changes be made in these revised plans and that these have not been adhered to. This alone is enough reason for these plans to be rejected, as they should be.

  271. Lynden Jacobi commented

    One major concern that has been mentioned in numerous submissions by locals and counselors is the lack of appropriate communal open space. Ideally for a development of this size it would be good to have open space closer to 5000m2 in an area that adjoins the new development and the existing suburb.
    As it is the almost 1000m2 open space, at one fifth of the desirable size, is set in the centre of the development and will be owned under strata to Lot 3. SNL have said it will be an easement, which means it will be able to be used by all.
    On 25 September 2014 in LMCC’s Referral Response CP – Community Land, they did not support this proposed open space. Quote:
    1. “ The location, size, and dedication of the public park is not supported.
    The applicant has proposed a public park within the development, and sighted it as a potential material public benefit to be dedicated to Council.
    For the dwellings created as part of the development, the park will provide a great resource within close proximity, which will positively benefit the amenity of the adjoining dwellings and road network.
    However, intentional or not, the plans use a number of informal territorial enforcement techniques around the park (centrally located within the development, elevated above the public path adjoining the Fernleigh Track, and the public path flow angling away from the park), and it is unlikely that anyone unfamiliar with the area will readily identify it as a public park, or feel comfortable using it.”
    Nothing has changed. It is still inappropriate and unusable.
    In a number of submissions presented orally to the JRPP on 23 July 2015, people requested clarification on a number of issues
    • Who will be responsible for the upkeep and ongoing maintenance of the lawns and gardens?
    • Who will be responsible for the playground equipment and picnic tables shown on the plans?
    • Who is responsible for the Pubic Liability Insurance?
    • Is there going to be a fence separating the park from the road?

    The JRPP deferred their determination pending a number of additional information including “Additional details being provided regarding the proposed mechanism to deliver and manage the proposed open space on Lot 25 as publically accessible open space.

    The response by SNL regarding this was totally insufficient. It was a short statement that they intend “to use provisions of the Conveyancing Act 1919,
    and that any alternate provisions to the Conveyancing Act would need to be endorsed by council.”
    This has not answered any of the matters raised.

  272. Michelle Burdekin commented

    To the General Manager LMCC,
    Dear Sir,
    I stand by my earlier submissions even though I realise they have not had any impact on the decision-making processes at LMCC. What I, and many others deemed reasonable responses to concerns about planning, social and environmental issues attending this development were ignored by council who dismissed what we had thought were valid concerns as irrelevant and insignificant.
    This time around, I will tell you a story instead, because I have read the story written by LMCC in their assessment to the JRPP and realise now that this is what one must do to be believed. It was the use of word “embellishment”, used by council in their suggested treatment of land in the 7(2) zone, and the denial of the likely existence of threatened species that has pushed me to this point.
    It is called, “If Only”.

    Once upon a time, there was an aging prince who like nothing more than to ride across the kingdom on his burnished steed, his keen eye surveying all it beheld. He was especially watchful for beautiful spots on which to use his special powers to build homes for the peasants of his lands. He took his duty to others deeply into his heart and would do whatever it took to make the dreams of those who loved him come true.
    He was helped along the way by all sorts of minions who were keen to do his bidding because they were touched by his generosity and love for mankind. They were kept ever so busy hithering and thithering to transform all his wishes into magic words and then from magic words to spells that turned wood and stones and other wondrous stuffs into houses.
    Along the way some forgot themselves, either worn out and tired from years and years of weaving work or slightly crazed by the magnificence of what they could achieve. They became a little giddy and the words changed from spells of good magic to curses which would lie in wait to fall on others who happened by the spots where they had been.
    One day the prince rode further from his castle than usual and came to a more distant place, a place near the sea, a place where a forest ran alongside the open hill on which his eye had lit, a place of gentle folk who cared about each other. These peasant folk were unknown to him and they had already delved, lumbered wood and heaved rocks to furnish themselves with modest dwellings alongside the vast field of his future dreams, and all without his help.
    He approached them boldly with his glittering plans for many, many new and tall homes that he would place upon the land now beneath his feet, land under which slumbered a sleeping dragon who had been resting quietly since the dwarves of yesteryear had laid down their picks to head for the mines beyond the mountain ranges and into the west. Land where rare and timid creatures hid in the forest only venturing out at night. A land where the people were trusting and kind and had a gesture of putting out both their hands to the side to imitate a set of scales for they were wont to remind themselves of balance in all things. It had worked more truly than any other system they had known. But of these things he did not know.
    Unfamiliar with each other’s ways, the meeting did not go well. The villagers had been used to being asked, not told, and from the laws that governed their lands they had understood that such a thing should not be done for it would tilt the balance by which they lived.
    The Prince was shocked for he was used to the sound of clapping and cheering when he shared his dreams. The people were perplexed. His dreams were not their dreams, their dreams were not his. What could be done?
    The Prince approached the chamber of the local Keepers of Knowledge and told to them his wishes. They listened but wanted to know more. His minions then went to the Keepers and wove their magic words around and around until they were bedazzled. The people were kept outside the chambers and by the time the words flew out some magic had been lost and curses crept into the weft and weave of the fine-grained tales told. The people didn’t see the magic as much as they felt the curses.
    They shivered and clung to each other for comfort. They were not, however, cowards and summoned the courage to creep into the Chambers and read the arcane texts that held much power when used by the right people, texts that spoke to them of the laws. Sadly for the folk of the village, they didn’t have the talisman that unlocked the power to enact these laws. Each new truth they unearthed in the chamber was quickly hidden again under more magic words from the minions.
    The Prince, seeing that the people had grown wary and distrustful of him humbled himself and hopped down off his high and burnished horse and stood among them, on the ground. He suddenly felt the mighty effect of their creed of balance and their love for the gentle lives they led, care for the forest creatures and each other. Finally, he understood a new thing.
    “Goodness,” he declared, “is not mine alone to decree. Minions cease your magic words for I can clearly see that they have built a hazy gauze between the dream and the reality. Together we will get as many of the elements in these new peasant homes that the locals are wanting, with the exception of bringing the dwellings down to half the number, we shall find a balance again. And, we will enhance the forests where the creatures live and travel. More homes for peasants, more trees for creatures, more trust in laws than in magic.’’
    And saying this, the curses that had flown from bent words dropped and turned to diamonds of truth. The minions stopped spinning and saw the world as it was, glorious and glittering without their tainted magic. The Keepers, clutching their books of laws saw them more clearly than they had before. The people were content.
    Holding one diamond in each hand the Prince was replete with satisfaction that he had made everyone happy and had harmed no one.

    The End.

    Regards,
    Michelle Burdekin

  273. Michelle Burdekin commented

    To The General Manager of LMCC

    Dear Sir,

    A final consideration in regard to SNL's arguments for not acquiescing to the JRPP's calls for very modest changes in view of the extreme flexibility granted to this development to go beyond the legislated planning controls. The 'rhythm' which will allegedly be disrupted in design terms, apart from being an arguable point is, quite frankly, an incredibly minor point amid the cacophonous clash provided by the inappropriate scale and impact of the development in total.

    The considerations for this DA have been so weighted to questions of design that they have ignored much more substantial matters. The euphemisms employed to disguise the totally inappropriate response to the 7(2) conservation land can not soften what is an unthinkable response by council regarding its obligation to achieve the objectives of this zone.

    Michelle Burdekin

  274. Jodie Davis commented

    My previous concerns I've raised still hold true as the revised plans submitted by the developer has not addressed the issues raised. My concerns include:
    - Failure to provide adequate visitor parking in an already congested area;
    - Lack of additional parking for the shopping and Fernleigh Track areas adjacent;
    - The excessive height of the development which goes against legislated limits of 10m, against the character of the area and contributing to unsupported density in a neighbourhood centre. Comparing this development to the local high school in this regard is not a suitable yardstick. The negative visual impact of the development as proposed will be significant and long lasting.
    - Failure to acknowledge the existence of the squirrel glider, a threatened species which likely uses the wildlife corridor and crossing point at this site.

    Additionally the developers lack of compliance with the JRPP's conditions from the meeting on 23 July (which I was unable to attend due to work and family commitments) shows a lack of respect for the process and the community and should result in rejection.

  275. Beau Rouse commented

    I resubmit in opposition to this development with the same concerns I raised in my last submission, as these concerns have not been ameliorated.

    I oppose this development in it's current form as it is inappropriate for the site and location. Other new town houses built in the area are a reasonable two storey height. My understanding is that these plans exceed the Lake Macquarie City Council 10m height limit for buildings by 3m. Most importantly, the density proposed for this site does not align with the vision shared by LMCC and residents when this area of land was rezoned.

    Furthermore, the revised plans do not comply with conditions set out by the Joint Regional Planning Panel. This non compliance should result in this development being rejected.

  276. Stephen Hobbs commented

    I would like to object the development DA/1774/2013 as I have done previously in a prior submission as the infrastructure there is not adequate to support the extra traffic as a result of this development. Dudley road has increasingly become a bottle neck since the proposed site for development has been fenced off with a lack of parking being evident and cars being forced to park on Dudley road down near the bridge. As a result I have had several close calls with cars coming in the opposite direction as the road is not wide enough and the shops car park is not big enough. Maybe some of the land should be put aside to increase the shops parking.
    Furthermore, the developer has not made the recommended changes and there is to many buildings, that are to high on this block of land. It is not in line with the surronding residential areas, and it seems to me that the lands zoning was changed to accomadate this development.
    I would not like this type of monstrosity at my back fence and do not look forward to the traffic congestion that this type of overdevelopment will produce. I believe that a fair result would be to look at the number of houses between Dudley road and kopa st and double it, make provisions for some extra shop parking and include a green space/corridor that all can use.
    In conclusion, I am not opposed to development, just this over development and our community wishes to be treated with due respect. It would be nice to feel like we have some say in what happens in our community, the community we live in and care for.

  277. Karyn Huizing commented

    To whom it may concern, please accept this submission AGAIN regarding the development
    . DA-1774/2013, 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street Whitebridge
    I am writing to voice my extreme objection to various elements of this developments new design. I find it hard to understand how so much seemed to ride on the JRRP decision and yet the developer has not complied with a variety of the recommendations, which were minor and in my opinion didn't support the community near enough,as it had the power to do.
    MYSELF AND MY FAMILY ARE PARTICULARLY AFFECTED AS WE ADJOIN THE DEVELOPMENT AND OUR PROPERTY IS ON THE CORNER OF KOPA ST. (The only entry and exit)
    Councils are employed for all the people, not just those of wealth and it is my opinion that this community has rallied together with good reason for a common goal: That being a good development that fits into the local community. I also feel that the decision that is made about this development will set a standard for other properties along this corridor of land previously planned for a major bypass. This is also a major concern.
    While I understand this property will be developed I agree with the concerns of the many submissions already lodged regarding the following issues:
    1)Traffic Issues
    *Kopa St being the only access and added traffic congestion in local area. This area is outrageous now without the burden of extra traffic.
    I draw your attention to the following links of which are taken from my property and 1 a video taken at school time PM. Please,please take the time to view proof of traffic issues that already exist. They show in video evidence the extent of traffic and delays.
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=805396379474141&set=o.390027067798916&type=2&theater
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10202767772455981&set=o.390027067798916&type=1&theater
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=633417736695367&set=o.390027067798916&type=1&theater
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=633417163362091&set=o.390027067798916&type=1&theater
    *The waiting times shown in the traffic study shocked me. As is demonstrated in the above links traffic can be backed up past Bula St on Dudley Rd and past Turrug St on Lonus ave. The reality is clearly shown in these links.
    * I constantly witness students endangering themselves by trying to cross between traffic. This development will increase traffic and further the danger to school students.
    *Cars are unable to access or leave driveways when this daily traffic jam occurs.
    * Staff from Whitebridge shops now park along Lonus Ave and it is difficult to pass when buses are arriving leaving the school.It is only a matter of time before accidents occur.
    *There have been several near misses with traffic leaving the long day care centre.
    *The parking at Whitebridge shops is already at capacity ALL DAY. Locals are well aware of the dangers of the car park as it exists now with the entry and exit points both very dangerous. This is before any more pressure is added by this high volume development. Also only having 1 exit where customers leave the carpark is ludicrous and only adds to daily chaos and danger of this carpark.
    *Kopa St is already used as a parking area for users of the Fernleigh track before adding to the parking on the street. Not everyone will park in underground parking particularly during the day.
    *I am extremely concerned about the impact on my family and home during the construction phase of such a huge development. How long will we be subject to building on the adjacent block and what impact will it have on our lives,road etc.
    *When voicing my concern about the scale and how this will affect me I was basically told if I didn't like it I could always move! This is my home of 20+ years and now I should move? I believe this shows an arrogance of developers and total lack of respect for community should it be allowed to go ahead in it's current form.
    2) Size and design of Development.
    *This development is not in keeping with surrounding areas. There are no developments of this size in the surrounding area and this DA is akin to building a city within a suburb. The 2 and 3 storeys are far too high and still too dense for this area and the plan for the commercial development of 4 storeys does not fit at all with the current surrounds at all, the newest plans have,unbelievably, increased the density. It will affect the whole shopping village. Developers do not live here and suffer the effects. Once their money is made they move on and we the community will be left in their wake should it be allowed.
    *Council zoning of this area would allow for about half the houses to be built and council needs to look at the views of the community. Councillors who voted on the rezoning wouldn't have agreed had they seen the future twist.
    *It encroaches on the privacy of adjoining properties greatly and changes the visual landscape of the area dramatically.
    *.This development is widely condemned by the local community and myself due in part to the sheer density.
    *This land is only a part of the corridor that was zoned for the eastern bypass and this parcel of land needs to be managed very carefully as it is a catalyst for future developments along this important land corridor that adjoins the Fernleigh track.
    *There is still minimal greenspace or communal areas in which youth and children can spend time and the playground is I believe not even available to the public!!
    *Squirrel Glider poles! How on earth is this good enough, these gliders need trees, not some token poles.

    It is my hope that this development can be dramatically reduced. It is inconceivable to me that this development could possibly be allowed by council with it's density and building height in this area! A large reduction would better enable this community to continue to function as a seaside community where people are happy with their surrounds and houses are built with environment and community in mind.
    I feel strongly that council and JRRP should have supported the communities objections to this development much more strongly. The fact that the developer has come back with a barely changed proposal is an outrage.
    Regards
    Karyn Huizing

  278. Catherine James commented

    I object to this development DA 1774/2013.

    The primary concern of the LMCC and the JRPP should be the well being and success of its communities, both present and future. This development should provide quality housing that complements the local area rather than low quality, tightly crammed housing that disconnects from its immediate surrounds and neighbours.

    I believe that LMCC medium density zoning requirements intended any development to be suited to the area in which it was to be built and would harmonise, or ideally improve, the local surrounds. There are no buildings of this size in the entire area. These zoning requirements could still be met with far fewer residences, and would alleviate many of the associated problems raised by residents.

    This large development places enormous strain on an already congested traffic and parking situation. The local shops rarely have enough parks for the current residents and Lonus Avenue, the roundabout, Dudley Road and the nearby streets often have accidents or 'near misses'. The addition of 200 cars to this small area is completely unsustainable and dangerous. Lonus Avenue houses a highschool, preschool, day care and childrens' park, which already have limited safe access and parking.

    The social issues raised from such an overcrowded development are serious. There is no personal space for residents to entertain or spend their time, meaning they are forced to use the local areas' already limited resources and amenities. The developer has stated that they will be building homes aimed at families. I have two small children and these 'family homes' with no outdoor space and minimal communal space that will share a wall with neighbours on both sides would be disastrous in a suburban setting. This will only create conflict and boredom, especially with teenage residents.

    I had believed that the LMCC had been taking its environmental responsibilities seriously. However, the complete disregard for environmental concerns within this development proposal are alarming. The misuse of the conservation zone is appalling.
    A 3 bedroom home NEEDS to have personal outdoor space to accommodate that number of inhabitants and to relieve social pressure on the surrounding community.

    The fact that this developer has disregarded community concerns, LMCC regulations and now the recommendations set out by the JRPP is outrageous.

    JRPP needs to REJECT this development

  279. Lisa Galvin Waight commented

    My daughter attends Birralee Daycare on Kopa Street, metres from the only entrance and exit of this development. As it is now it is an extremely busy street and can be difficult to safely get a parking space and get my daughter into daycare. With the addition of hundreds of extra cars into this small area the potential for accidents will increase dramatically. The LMCC assessment has stated that traffic problems and dangers to pedestrians are not a problem, this is wrong. LMCC have ignored over 700 complaints from locals and based their assessment on a (false) report.

    SNL have exceeded height limits, misused conservation zones, ignored the reasonable concerns of locals and disregarded the recommendations set out by the JRPP.

    I ask that the JRPP reject this over development.

  280. Kimberley Broughton commented

    I write again in opposition of the proposed development at Whitebridge. The developer has not complied with conditions as set down by the JRPP. They have disregarded community concerns. They will readily sacrifice the population of a native species. This development will be disastrous for the area, and the developer has communicated, loudly and clearly, that the only concern they have is maximizing their bottom line. For all these reasons, and the reasons stated in my previous submissions, this DA must not be approved.

    One can only wonder how on earth a development proposal that is against council regulations, protested strongly by the community and so obviously a money-grabbing venture on the part of opportunistic developers can progress so far as to be put before the JRPP for a decision to be made.
    Any arguments that this is 'urban consolidation' are simply not genuine.
    The proposed development undoubtedly will cause many more problems than what it offers as positive contributions (the latter of which are almost impossible to identify).
    These problems revolve around traffic congestion and parking problems on roads already at full capacity, dangers to pedestrians, an inevitable increase in crime, damage to social harmony, erosion of an environmental corridor, lack of adequate storm water provisions, aesthetic damage to the suburb and Ferleigh Track as a result of non-compliance with council's height limits and dwellings-per-hectare guidelines.
    I have not once, for the entire duration of this process from proposal till now, heard ANYONE (besides the developers) say that this is a positive approach to urban consolidation and a benefit to the community. There has been only negative responses to this development.
    Surely JRPP will easily see why.

    Kim Broughton

  281. Dean Broughton commented

    I hereby resubmit my previous submission, reiterating what I had already written in the 2 before that! The JRPP made only minute changes to this massive development in a small suburb, and the developer has not even been willing to amend their plans to reflect these. This DA must be rejected as it does not comply with LMCC planning guidelines OR JRPP conditions.

    To whom it may concern
    I strongly oppose the development of the large parcel of land at Dudley Road and Lonus Avenue, Whitebridge.
    It is very clear to see that the proposed development will not fit in with the suburb. It is in the heart of the suburb which is currently developing such a growth in atmosphere and community spirit as a result of popular shops and cafes and visitors from the Fernleigh Track. The village atmopshere so desirable for our suburbs will be destroyed.
    Traffic problems will be the result of a sudden increase of 91 dwellings in the area. The local infrastructure will be unable to cope. The safety of residents and pedestrians will be compromised.
    I cannot understand how the developer can propose a development of 4 storeys when council guidelines stipulate 2 storeys is appropriate for a neighbourhood centre, which is adequate for a small suburb.
    The Fernleigh Track, which currently provides an 'escape into the bush' experience for Novocastrians will be disappointingly compromised by such a huge monstrosity of a development right next to it.
    Further, the developer using the environmental corridor to accommodate the permeability requirement of good 'safety by design' principles is outrageous. This developer time and time again has made decisions which appear to demonstrate their lack of social conscious and their self-serving interests.
    People are speaking loudly against this. Council and the JRPP must listen!

    Dean Broughton

  282. Dean Broughton commented

    I hereby resubmit my previous submission, reiterating what I had already written in the 2 before that! The JRPP made only minute changes to this massive development in a small suburb, and the developer has not even been willing to amend their plans to reflect these. This DA must be rejected as it does not comply with LMCC planning guidelines OR JRPP conditions.

    To whom it may concern
    I strongly oppose the development of the large parcel of land at Dudley Road and Lonus Avenue, Whitebridge.
    It is very clear to see that the proposed development will not fit in with the suburb. It is in the heart of the suburb which is currently developing such a growth in atmosphere and community spirit as a result of popular shops and cafes and visitors from the Fernleigh Track. The village atmopshere so desirable for our suburbs will be destroyed.
    Traffic problems will be the result of a sudden increase of 91 dwellings in the area. The local infrastructure will be unable to cope. The safety of residents and pedestrians will be compromised.
    I cannot understand how the developer can propose a development of 4 storeys when council guidelines stipulate 2 storeys is appropriate for a neighbourhood centre, which is adequate for a small suburb.
    The Fernleigh Track, which currently provides an 'escape into the bush' experience for Novocastrians will be disappointingly compromised by such a huge monstrosity of a development right next to it.
    Further, the developer using the environmental corridor to accommodate the permeability requirement of good 'safety by design' principles is outrageous. This developer time and time again has made decisions which appear to demonstrate their lack of social conscious and their self-serving interests.
    People are speaking loudly against this. Council and the JRPP must listen!

    Dean Broughton

  283. Katherine Cox commented

    My previous concerns still hold true, as the design has not been suitably altered.

    I would also like to express my concern regarding the developer’s lack of compliance with the conditions set out by the JRPP in the meeting on 23rd of July, and how this non-compliance should result in rejection by the JRPP.

    Other issues that I would like to see addressed are:-

    • The excessive height which goes against legislated limits of 10m and contributes to the unsupported density in a neighbourhood centre, and is grossly incompatible with current character and any expressed future character as described in LMCC Lifestyle 2030.

    • Misuse and under-estimation of the significance of the environmental zoned land. The 7(2), now E2, conservation zoned land is being used by this development for asset protection and infrastructure but will give it to council to manage.
    Council’s assessment failed to acknowledge the existence of at least one threatened species [the squirrel glider] presence in the corridor and the strong likelihood of their use of the wildlife corridor and crossing point at this site. The compromised link between Glenrock State Conservation Area, Belmont Wetlands and the Awabakal nature reserve and the negative impact this could have on biodiversity has been made more vulnerable again due to Council’s failure to accurately follow their own “Flora and Fauna Survey Guidelines” in their response to this development. The development also contravenes the following:
    - Lifestyle 2030 p43. “Existing corridors should be protected and enhanced, disjointed corridors should be restored, and barriers to fauna movement crossed to link habitat areas. Native vegetation corridors and barrier crossings allow the Green System to function as an integrated system.”
    - In the LMDCP – Section 7 Development in Environmental Zones at 2.11 BUSHFIRE
    Objectives:
    · To ensure that risks associated with bushfire are appropriately and effectively managed on the development site.
    · b. To ensure that bushfire risk is managed in connection with the preservation of the ecological values of the site and adjoining lands.
    Controls:
    · Development must comply with the NSW Planning for Bushfire Protection Guidelines
    · Asset Protection Zones must:
    · i. Be incorporated into the design of the development;
    · ii. Be as low maintenance as possible;
    · iii. Be located outside areas of ecological value and the buffers necessary to protect them; and
    · iv. Not occur on adjoining environmental zoned land.

    - At 2.12 Flora and Fauna, especially

    6. Native vegetation buffers must be provided between development and areas containing threatened flora and fauna species or their habitat, threatened vegetation communities and native vegetation corridors. The width of the buffer should be determined with reference to the function of the habitat, the threat of sea level rise and the type of development proposed. The buffer should be designed to keep the area of significance in natural condition.
    and
    10. Buildings and structures, roads, driveways, fences, dams, infrastructure, drainage and asset protection zones should be located outside of areas with significant flora and fauna, native vegetation corridors and buffers.

    • Unappreciated visual impact on the suburb and along the Fernleigh Track. This development creates an unfortunate clash point with its surrounds. It also foreshadows other intrusions along the Track as likely and instead of adhering to Council’s plans to mitigate against such clashes, foregrounds a tolerance for them.

    • Failure to provide adequate visitor parking for the proposal, which is going to impact very negatively on the shopping area which Council, the developer, traffic assessments and the community have ALL acknowledged is ALREADY a problem, already presenting a shortfall. What has been proposed increases the short fall by 16 parking spaces. Council supports a worsening of existing parking problem at the shops. They are building problems in, not solving them.
    At the time of rezoning, the issue of parking in the shopping precinct was identified as a problem. A request for 30 new car spaces to cater for shopper and Fernleigh Track user demands was made. This was ignored, despite council’s assessor at the time stating, “I would agree that parking or the provision of parking with the Fernleigh track will be an increasing problem.” No solution was offered.
    The 2009 East Charlestown Traffic Study identified the commercial area of Whitebridge as warranting investigation for the following reasons:
    - stacking through the roundabout
    - inadequate parking
    - dangers when executing a right hand exit
    - safety of pedestrians through the site

    • An unsatisfactory size, location and management for the “private public” open space for the development.

  284. Sarah Morrison commented

    As a regular visitor to Whitebridge and a regular user of the Fernleigh Track I object to this development. It will poorly integrate with the beautiful bushy surrounds, create a visual eyesore, increase pedestrian and cyclist dangers and impedes the conservation of the area. This land should be developed in a manner that complements and integrates with the natural and man made surroundings, rather than alienate from it.

    The fact that this developer has ignored building rules and regulations and now ignored the JRPP ruling is absurd.

    This development needs to be rejected in favour of a less dense one that fits the desired future of Whitebridge .

  285. Ross Beveridge commented

    Once again, by ignoring most of the requirements of the JRPP to redesign the proposal the developer has shown their contempt for the rules.

    This is not a site that requires the rules to be bent to fit in with unique limitations. It is a wide open blank canvas but still the developer pushes past the legal limit driven by greed.

    The latest plan has only a slight downgrading of the height of the buildings meaning they will still exceed the maximum.

    They still illegitimately used the conservation zone for drainage and fire protection.

    They haven't met the mandatory parking requirements.

    They have failed to plan for use of the open space.

    JRPP needs to reject this design.

  286. Lisa Suprano commented

    I put forward all my previous concerns, once again, as stated here below, because once again, these concerns have been ignored. This DA must not be approved in its current form. May I add, that it is extremely unfair to ignore the concerns of citizens, the least of the reasons being that it has resulted in them having to submit 4 times, saying the same thing each time!

    DA 1774/2013 – Development of Dudley Road/Kopa Street
    I strongly oppose the proposed development of Dudley Road and Kopa Street.
    I often walk to the shops or park with my friend and our children from Station Street. I am concerned about the safety of walking around Whitebridge with children in the event of an addition of 91 dwellings and their cars in the centre of the neighbourhood.
    I am also concerned about the traffic congestion that will occur. There will also be a dramatic increase in the number of pedestrians using the walkways and crossings, which will slow down the movement of traffic past the shops. The roads are already barely coping when considering the amount of movement around the suburb related to the shops, park, tennis court, oval, 2 preschools, highschool and general traffic passing through on the way to Dudley and Redhead.
    This development is not in keeping with the current character of Whitebridge. Whitebridge is a neighbourhood with a village-like atmosphere. A 91 unit, 3 to 4 storey development is totally out of character for this area. It will impact negatively on the atmosphere of the neighbourhood.
    The proposed development will look out of place in a neighbourhood where most dwellings are single-storey houses. Although it is inevitable that the area will increase in density over time given the zoning applied, to attempt to grow so drastically, all on one piece of land, in the heart of the neighbourhood, is inappropriate growth and will have devastating consequences for the suburb.
    The developement is also too close to the Fernleigh Track and will ruin the current tranquil experience of using the track. Also of concern is the developer's lack of regard for the Environmental Corridor which should remain undisturbed.
    The deciding body must act responsibly with a view to securing a positive future for the suburb.

    Lisa Suprano

  287. Brett Suprano commented

    The reason we have planning departments in councils, and the JRPP, is so that development occurs with integrity and with positive results. It is imperative that the JRPP stand up to this developer, and demand that they comply with the conditions set down. They are getting away with not complying with so many of the council’s own planning guidelines as it is - the community wonders why these guidelines exist, and why the average resident is bound by them, if a developer with lots of money can come along and change it all to suit themselves. Is that the kind of society we want to live in? The developer must comply, just like everyone else. I hereby submit my previous submission, here below, as these concerns have not been addressed.

    I wish to express my opposition to the development on Dudley Road, Whitebridge DA 1774/2013.
    The developer has failed to address the issues that are of huge concern.
    The land was intended for 40-50 dwellings, which is still much more dense than the rest of Whitebridge, but which could still blend in with the suburb which should be the intention of any new development. The proposed number of 91 dwellings is mass over-development.
    Four storeys along Dudley Road demonstrates a lack of regard not only for community concerns, but also for council planning guidelines. The intended maximum number of storeys for a neighbourhood centre is HALF this.
    It is inappropriate and irresponsible to use the environmental corridor as a pathway from the Track to Dudley Road.
    Council’s Lifestyle 2020 and 2030 documents reflect the fact that urban consolidation is desirable, but there was surely no intention that it be achieved in such a drastic, thoughtless and inappropriate manner.
    It was once fortunate for Whitebridge that a large parcel of undeveloped land existed, as the possibilities were exciting – now it is extremely unfortunate as it could mean the destruction of the suburb as we know it.

    Regards,
    Brett Suprano

  288. Len McCarthy commented

    JRPP SUBMISSION AUGUST 31 2015 from Len McCarthy

    I am asking the JRPP to reject this DA on the grounds of its total unsuitability for Whitebridge and the damage it will do to the wildlife corridor along the Fernleigh Track.
    1-The DA has no merit that would excuse it exceeding the development guidelines. The DA exceeds the recommended height, density and visual impact guidelines by large percentages and would seriously degrade the quality of Whitebridge suburb.
    2-If allowed this DA would encourage an explosion of four-story development along Lonus Avenue, Bullsgarden Road and Dudley Road, which would be unsuitable for the area. Within ten years this area will look like Ashfield rather than Whitebridge.
    3- The DA requires the removal of six trees to construct a driveway for lot number 23. The Arboriculture Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan commissioned by the developer says ... “these trees were assessed and generally found to have some structural faults, poor form or disease.” In fact these trees form an essential link along the wildlife corridor connecting Awabakal, Glenrock State Recreation Area and the Belmont Wetlands and trees with ‘structural faults, poor form and disease’ are exactly what wildlife need for food, nesting sites and migration.
    Because the removal of these trees and understory and groundcover would cut the wildlife corridor the DA is in breach of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
    The developer claims that, “The proposed Landscape Master Plan will improve ecological function of the faunal
    movement corridor identified under the LMCC Native Vegetation and Corridors Mapping Plan.”
    This claim is impossible if it includes destroying mature trees which right now are providing food, nesting, safety and travel for existing populations of endangered species such as the Squirrel Glider (Petaurus norfolcensis) recently documented in the area.
    There is absolutely no chance that this development would “improve ecological function of the faunal movement corridor” and it is clearly in breach of both the letter and the intent of local, state and federal law.
    So I ask the JRPP to reject this DA in its current form.
    Len McCarthy 31 August 2015.

  289. Simon Gintings commented

    I object to this development, which is clearly excessive and in separation to the community values and desired future for Whitebridge.

    I want to raise my concerns that this developer is able to ignore rules and regulations, ignore community concerns and waste taxpayers' money in this ongoing process.

    The JRPP recommended that the developer make several small changes to this DA and they,once again, refused to comply.

    My main concerns with this development are as follows;

    1. The visual impact of this development will be devastating. This is a natural, bushland setting with the development adjoining the Fernleigh track. The continuous buildings, lack of appropriate setbacks, excessive height, lack of green space and frontage will be an eyesore. The number of dwellings need to be decreased and more stringent design standards need to apply.

    2. The increase in traffic and pedestrians in Whitebridge, due to this development, will make a dangerous area worse. The number of dwellings need to be decreased to solve this problem.

    3. The lack of green space, both personal and communal, is minimal. The public park is small and completely unacceptable. The conservation zone houses an array of non-environmental structures and uses that are completely unacceptable in a conservation zone. These need to be moved.

    4. The excessive height still exceeds the height limits for this area. The height of the building on Dudley Road will be completely out of character with the surrounding shops and the dwellings now do not tier down adequately. This will look boxy and will, again, be a visual eyesore.

    After having just gone through the process of adding an extension to my home I am aware of the lengthy rules and regulations that I was made to strictly adhere to (which added a great deal of my time, effort and money to do this) why is it that these expectations apply to homeowners but developers are able to maximise their profits and ignore these same rules??

    I ask that the JRPP reject this over development.

    Thank you
    Simon Gintings

  290. R. J. Scott commented

    I have read quite a few comments related to this DA and I am inclined to agree with all of those that do not approve. The is clearly insufficient infrastructure to cater for an influx of people to be housed in that many dwellings. There is no consideration about the impact on wildlife corridors, no consideration about the impact on the quality of life in the area and absolutely no thought given to what the residents of Whitebridge and surrounds actually want.
    In my view it should be stopped immediately and if the area is to be developed, a more logical and less environmentally destructive alternative proposed.
    Regards,
    R. J. Scott

  291. Michelle Burdekin commented

    Dear Sir,

    Re DA 1774/2013.

    I draw your attention to the following from LMCC City Strategy Committee Meeting 11 May 2015. This information was recently sent through to me via a LMCC Have Your Say community engagement email and has prompted this late submission, particularly as it pertains to the statement at aim B) – I have underlined the salient point for you.

    “14/15-02 Identifying Squirrel Glider Habitat and Corridors in the Glenrock-Awabakal-Belmont Metahabitat System ($2,050 excluding GST).
    The Squirrel Glider Petaurus norfolcensis is one of the priority fauna species for management within the Lake Macquarie City Council LGA, and identified as such in Council environmental and planning documents. The Eastern Lake Macquarie population is currently thought to be much smaller than the larger Wyong population, and is threatened by urban development causing habitat loss and disrupting corridor systems between remnant bushland patches that support the glider. Potentially, this population could be considered as an endangered population under the TSC Act. The Squirrel Glider metahabitat east of the Pacific Highway, formed by interconnected bushland from Glenrock and Awabakal SCA running through Jewells to Belmont Wetlands, is largely isolated from other sections of the Eastern Lake Macquarie population habitat.
    While there are a number of records indicating Squirrel Glider occupation in the southern (Belmont section), there is a lack of baseline data for Glenrock, Awabakal and the connecting Fernleigh Track corridor systems. This lack of detailed knowledge of distribution of gliders and glider habitat, and corridor function, in the Glenrock-Belmont habitat creates a problem in environmental and urban planning and decision making for Council.
    This project will generate improved baseline information on Squirrel Glider habitat, distribution and connectivity in the Glenrock-Belmont metahabitat system. This information will assist LMCC in management and conservation planning for the squirrel glider within the Eastern Lake Macquarie population. Funding requested will support consumables and travel associated with vegetation and Squirrel Glider surveys.

    The aims of this study are:
    A. To address the paucity of knowledge of Squirrel Glider distribution, habitat and corridors in the Glenrock-Belmont Metahabitat system by mapping habitat, and undertake occupancy surveys in the Glenrock, Awabakal and other forest patches, and in and around potential corridors to build a picture of the status of the population, and the viability of the metahabitat system.
    B. Determine the status of the Fernleigh Track corridor at Whitebridge, given this point appears to be a bottleneck for Squirrel Glider dispersal with significant implications for connectivity through the whole Glenrock-Belmont metahabitat system.

    This research project is to be undertaken by Dr. John Clulow, School of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Newcastle (Callaghan campus).
    The Committee rated this research as a high priority when assessed against the other submissions and resolved to support the project.”
    In view of the above and all other submissions which have argued for the significance of the 7(2)/E2 zone it is imperative that LMCC’s assessment of the proposed use for this land be very carefully reassessed, this time correctly following procedures for assessment when the land in question provides habitat for a threatened species. The 7(2)/E2 land should be kept purely for conservation and rehabilitation, and approval should NOT be given to this DA 1774/2013 in its current form. As it stands this DA undermines the objectives of the 7(2)/E2 zone, removing its primary objective as environmental conservation land, using it instead as an asset protection zone, road reserve and drainage reserve.
    The DA demonstrably negates the zone objectives at (a), (b), (c) and (d).
    Zone objectives
    The objectives of the 7(2) Zone that is subject to this Objection are:
    (a) protect, conserve and enhance land that is environmentally important, and
    (b) protect, manage and enhance corridors to facilitate species movement, dispersal and interchange of genetic material, and
    (c) enable development where it can be demonstrated that the development will not compromise the ecological, hydrological, scenic or scientific attributes of the land or adjacent land in Zone 7 (1), and
    (d) ensure that development proposals result in rehabilitation and conservation of environmentally important land, and
    (e) provide for sustainable water cycle management.

    Council’s last minute change to include ‘squirrel glider poles’ as notified at the JRPP meeting in regard to this DA, is problematic for two reasons.
    Firstly, LMCC’s final Report on this DA to the JRPP had declared the unlikelihood of any threatened species in the vicinity, premised on the environmental report submitted by the developer. Information that squirrel gliders were in the vicinity was already in council domain as evidenced in the notes from the LMCC SCM 11th May 2015, and had been stated in the Environmental Review supporting Amendment 53 to LEP 2004 as ‘likely’ and had been argued for in Dr Clulow’s submissions on this DA. That these counterpoints to the way the 7(2) land was assessed were ignored so that it was only assessed as ‘degraded and disturbed’ but not also as it should have been IF the likelihood of a threatened species was in the vicinity and whose habitat could be negatively impacted by the DA is very worrying on procedural terms and in terms of the decision reached. The impacts both direct and indirect should have been assessed on the understanding that threatened species relied on the habitat abutting the site [inclusive of trees designated for removal on council land at the end of Kopa St] and that the 7(2) land needs to be afforded the full extent of the conservation and rehabilitation objectives listed above. The DA proposes a demonstrable compromise to the ecological attributes of the land.

    Which brings me to the second point and that is that the ‘glider poles’ by any reasonable measure are an ineffective response to the problem created by LMCC’s mis-assessment of the site’s ecological attributes. This ‘solution’ flouts advice provided by LMCC in their Draft Squirrel Glider Plan and Dr Clulow in his recent 7 Point Test (submitted to LMCC and the JRPP) regarding necessary extension, rehabilitation and protection of green corridor to support squirrel glider populations. It is wishful, unsubstantiated thinking to suggest that the ‘embellishments’ suggested will result in the necessary enhancement and rehabilitation required to protect or facilitate species movement for the squirrel glider populations in this vicinity.

    Regards,
    Michelle Burdekin

  292. STUART Lowndes commented

    Dear Lake Macquarie City Council,

    I am very concerned with the proposed development slated for DA/1774/2013 and the 89 dwellings to go in there.

    My objections include:

    1. Traffic and parking congestion that is already significant, there is no plans to alleviate this problem around Lonus Avenue, Bulls garden road, Kopa Street and Dudley road. This is particularly bad at school commuting times and increased traffic will add to the pedestrian risk in the area particularly to younger members of our community.

    2. Over development out of keeping with the area.

    3. Risk to native fauna such as the endangered squirrel glider native to the area.

    4. Lack of green space for residents in the proposed development.

    I strongly object to the development in its current form and unless significant improvements are made to existing infrastructure such as roads and transport and the number of dwellings proposed is significantly decreased.

    Kind Regards,

    Stuart Lowndes

  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