PlanningAlerts

11 Comments

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

1. I live in Hanson Ave and we get a lot of traffic short cutting via Essington Way and then into Hanson Ave instead of going up to Morna Point Rd. Presumably because of the big speed hump at the school on Gan Gan Rd.

   I believe any development at Fishermans bay will result directly in more traffic on Hanson Ave. We do not want the area to become over populated or over crowded.

2. i have a real concern about fire and the safety plan for so many residents with such narrow roads and only 2 exits.
   Fire trucks trying to get into the estate and people trying to get out - WHAT A DISASTER !
   Clonmeen Crt can't be altered and would be a disaster in a emergency which only leaves Fishermans bay Rd to be widened ???? this would mean only one exit in an emergency and the one least used.

3. We find it amazing that our Council & the State Government would even consider establishing a 104 lot estate in a village the size of Anna Bay without consideration of the already poor roads, lack of parking & shops, the impact it will have on our school & medical centre & most of all the destruction of our flora & fauna that is so much a part of our town. Corlette is not yet finished so why the need to build more houses when the demand really is not needed at this point in time?

4. I am finding it really hard to understand how development of large lots of pritine land can even be considered, when there are so, so many environmental issues to consider.

   Good planning surely must be pivotal in achieving the very best outcome for not only the ratepayers in the community, but most importantly the conservation of pristine, virgin bushland for native birds and koalas to live as they try to do without human destruction of their habitats.

   So, what do the Town Planners of community do for us ~

   * Do they listen to the concerns of ratepayers?????
   * Do they visit the planned development sites and actually see for themselves the areas that are considered suitable for urban development or do they do their planning from a map of the area??????
   * Do they have any input into the final outcome and assessment when the final draft is before the Joint Regional Planning Panel???

   This Development application is to be presented to the Joint Regional planning Panel on 5 February 2015 and I have many concerns regarding the Fishermans Bay Development and feel that more time needs to be available for the ratepayers of Port Stephens to have their concerns not only heard, but also to BE ACKNOWLEDGED by a council representative.

5. My concerns are that the lots will be of a size that can be legally subdivided, meaning that we could well end up with double the amount of houses.
   Also Anna Bay has known drainage problems, so with any additional housing,the water runoff/curb & guttering etc the whole stormwater/drain system of Anna Bay with be put under enormous strain.................some how I don't think the developer will correct the entire Anna Bay drainage system.
   Bush fires/emergencies are a concern too with only one major ?(fishermans bay rd) entrance and exit .
   
   I think a major reconsideration of this proposed development would be a good idea.

6. We are just one of the very concerned families that live in Clonmeen Cct and that also object to this development. At the beginning of Clonmeen Cct it is already very narrow, having the entry point into this estate here is not safe.

   We have 3 young kids that walk to school (SAFETY, SAFETY, SAFETY MUST COME FIRST) and in the future will also need to get their own cars. The increase in car ownership and car usage on the surrounding roads will put strain on the network.
   Near misses already occur all the time on the narrow Essington Way.
   Add to this the increase in cars from the new home owners on the new development site.

   Simple math;
   104 lots
   2 cars per family
   = 208 extra cars

   What about the overwhelming numbers of trucks, service equipment, trades vehicles, construction vehicles and machinery that will be needed over a very long period of time until all is finally developed.
   Why put so many lives at risk?
   Why damage this area?

   Anna Bay already lacks infrastructure at the best of times and doesn't even cope outside of school holidays.

   Has anyone consulted with the Aboriginal Land council of Worimi about any possibility that the area might be a sacred site?

   The proposed development area is well and truly loved and utilised in a very positive way by our local community including many families, youth and elders that frequent the area.

   We also think that a major reconsideration of this proposed development would be a good idea.

   Save the koalas!

7. Dear councilors,the fact that this development should not go ahead is quite obvious,as many have already explained to you and forwarde countless letters to you,my main concern amongst others is that the proposed area IS A KOALA HABITAT, as we all know this precious Aussie creature is endangered,the council need to do an INDEPENDENT enviourmental impact study which is up to date. You cannot put a price on such a precious creature whose numbers are dwindling. Thank you.

8. I object to this proposal for many reasons with the main reason being the negative environmental impact on the proposed site effecting the native flora and fauna.

   Two visual studies of the site were performed by myself and by others. During these surveys of the site's biodiversity from the outside perimetre, we could identify the Phascolarctos cinereus (koala) almost immediately on a tree tagged for removal #631 (photo proof was taken). Many other species were also visually and audibly identified including the Feathertail Glider, the Ringtail Possum and the Green and Golden Bell Frog. The site also contains a number Eucalyptus Parramattensis trees that I believe are a protected native species for the sole purpose of providing food source for the Port Stephens koala.

   This leads me to the other negative impact of this development to the native wildlife. If the development goes through, for the few surviving koalas there will be many more road deaths when you consider an extra 104 houses in this small concentrated area built on the edge of the bush. The local native rescue group deal with approximately 30 koala road deaths every year so this will certainly increase these numbers.

   Even if the development were to be approved there would have to be major changes made to the application to consider the native wildlife and the negative consequences. There is no mention of koala crossings, 40kph speed limits, no dogs or cat policy, fauna nest boxes or signage.

   Lastly, the people who live and work in Port Stephens live and work here for a reason and that is to enjoy the beautiful area with all it has to offer and that is including the bush and its creatures. We dont want to be just another area with 'suburbs'... we want to keep Port Stephens beautiful and special.

9. The proposed development should immediately be included in the National Park - for the community, wildlife, tourism and future generations.

   What possible reason could be used to approve this development? There is none.

   Communities and forward thinking councils have fought development before with spectacular results. When urban development threatened the National Park at Noosa for example, intelligent people - with foresight -stopped it. The park has even been extended over the years with a solid management plan. The outcome of this for the residents, flora/fauna and tourists cannot be understated.

   For all of the previously documented reasons by the community, this mindless development should never be approved.

10. Highly inappropriate DA and weak staff assessment, tragic example of system failure.

    This is high value environmental asset, the main attraction of Port Stephens!
    There are plenty of other degraded areas to develop that residents would appreciate.

    So Koala 'Other' veg in proximity surrounding 'Preferred' and 'Supplementary' is not Habitat Buffer that "require the highest level of protection possible"? (5.1 CKPoM)

    The interface of this land "should be of the highest priority for koala habitat restoration projects" (How about Council promoting community bushcare groups instead of disengaging and upsetting residents??) and all the remainder incorporated into the Park.

    Please Councillors, send the message to Urbangrowth, lead by example to landowners and do the right thing!

11. I do not support this development.

    Socially, there is no need for further housing in this area of Port Stephens. There are many vacant blocks in Corlette and other areas that are not selling, so why create more land availability when it is not needed? Anna Bay is a small coastal village, with little infrastructure to support this kind of expansion. Furthermore, developments such as this create a glut of housing (from investors) that also does not sell. This development is not a sensible decision for Anna Bay.

    Environmentally, we chose to live in Anna Bay for the natural environment that surrounds us. The area proposed to be developed into the 104 lot will remove important native vegetation and habitat for our native animals and birds. This must be a consideration in the Councils decision for this development.

    Even in cities they maintain green areas for native habitat and animals - and this is a perfect example of a green area that is critical to maintain for long term animal and bird habitat.

    Council should not support this development.

Have your say on this application

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

Create an account or sign in to make a comment