PlanningAlerts

1 Comment

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

1. To Whom It May Concern – Port Stephens Council,
   I am writing in objection to the gross over-development of the site 1 & 1A Sylvan Avenue MEDOWIE. My family lives directly opposite the property and will undoubtedly be affected by the over-development of this site. I have lived in Medowie since 1985 and finally had the opportunity to build our dream home on a lovely big block in Medowie’s finest acreage estate. It was with disbelief that I opened the mail proposing the greedy over-development of the block across the road. It is, without question, not at all in keeping with the character of the estate. There are no multi dwelling housing developments along any part of Sylvan Avenue or South Street or the embedded Closes/Streets etc. It is completely out of character with neighbourhood and not at all in keeping with the original conditions from which this beautiful estate evolved. It will have a depreciating effect on our property, as people don’t want to move to an acreage estate to look over the rooftops of six congested houses and a large shed. This proposal has an aesthetically disgusting aspect for our family home. It’s not what the people who buy into this particular estate are looking for, and it’s certainly not at all necessary given the quantity of tiny lot alignments now available on the golf course itself. Further, it sets a precedent. If over-development of this site is allowed, then it opens the door for future residents to “cash in” on similar development proposals, ruining the estate and devaluing neighbouring properties as they move on, having destroyed the rural acreage landscape in their wake!
   Safety is another big concern. I can’t possibly imagine 12 red/yellow garbage bins fitting in between the extra 2 driveways proposed. What I can predict are the unsafe conditions drivers will be faced with as they try to manoeuvre on the dangerous arcing crest, as it’s blocked by a garbage truck emptying 12 bins! Not to mention the sheer influx of cars to the site. As it stands, this road is double white lines due to the dangerous crest, and we know that parking on the council reserve is illegal. Already there are frequent occasions, meaning daily, where people are parking either partially on the road or on the council reserve. This happens with trades(some with trailers) attending the site office on the corner, residents parked near the bus stopping area, especially on wet days and parents from the Kindy Patch parked everywhere given preschool functions, such as the upcoming Christmas/graduation concert. There is no way that the site is designed for multiple visitors to park. Can you imagine just 2 out of the 6 proposed houses hosting an occasion on the same afternoon/evening?? It would be a dangerous, congested nightmare for residents…with this design guaranteeing visitors are forced to park illegally on the roadside (that’s if the 12 bins aren’t blocking the kerb!) It would affect residents walking their children to the Kindy Patch preschool also. The houses are small designs in comparison to the surrounding acreage properties. It is not hard to imagine, given their size, that the garages would be used for storage and the 2 resident’s vehicles would be parked in their driveways. This would not only prevent a single potential visitor from parking safely, but possibly block the council reserve used by residents to walk to Kindy Patch or the golf course itself. Now, if the future residents had a teenage child and we added a third car to the mix and times that possibility by 6 houses…it’s a recipe for ghetto disaster given the lane way access for at least four of the houses and the caravanning/boat storage shed. God help the poor neighbours adjacent to the side of the laneway…one can easily imagine the lights, noise of cars/motorbikes revving up and the commotions of frequent traffic up the side of their house as their young children try to sleep! I fear the noise problem for us will be bad enough. There is no denying that the cumulative effect of housing residences so closely will create a substantive increase of noise for residents. A congested site is so unappealing to residents who sought the tranquillity of acreage living, and the peace afforded them in making that choice to invest in space!
   Community concern also reflects the watering down of estate ‘rules’. NOBODY signed up to invest in a congested dual occupancy estate!! Particularly the fact that this development is in no way keeping with the original design briefs imposed on residents who have already built. How far away is the furthest house form the roadside water hydrant in front of our property, across the road from this site? It was noted that it was only 15 metres from the “house” on the development application…but which house, there are 6 after all! It is certainly a fire risk being so far away from the water hydrant, coupled with a congested alleyway access point! Further, they have ticked “no” to a plan to have a dedicated water supply for fire fighting purposes. It is congested, money driven, investment. It absolutely DOES NOT fit with existing houses and their ‘Statement of Environmental Effects’ is a rather convincing joke. The streetscape character C4.21 is not sympathetic to our residence at all! If this over-development is approved than it will be to the detriment of existing residents. It is ridiculous to consider the building of 6 houses as still complying with an R5 Large Lot Residential area. It does not fit with the character of the neighbourhood/acreage estate. The gift of hindsight is a wonderful thing, had we known that this excessive development were proposed directly across the road from our house, that it would be our ‘picturesque view’, before we invested in building our executive residence, than we would have certainly have looked elsewhere for a block of land. It is completely out-of-character with surrounding estate homes, all situated on large acreage. There is little provision for privacy, as there is little space afforded these lots for substantive gardens and privacy planting. It is simply too much over-development of the site, in keeping with the scope of the neighbourhood.
   What concerns us further, is the usage of the number of houses. Are they to be rented out? Is this a greedy attempt to bend the rules and capitalise on every square inch of the land? Is this a cash cow for the council, who will collect 6 sets of rates instead of 2 or 3? Given the council’s inability to maintain community expectations, as demonstrated by the watering down of what was/is here, our concern is – “Will the rules be further bent to allow for future rezoning in order to sell the excessive number of houses as individual lot alignments when investors move on?” What has happened to Medowie’s rural outlook? Who would want to live in a supposedly ‘acreage estate’, directly across the road from the hideous over-development of this site? If the lots were not rezoned, then their design is to the appeal of future investors, not residents who want to live in this paradise and make it their home. Investors don’t tend to care about much more than money/rental income. Will they care and manicure any potential garden; will they invest in the aesthetic appeal of the properties/neighbourhood? It’s simply not hard to imagine these properties continually changing tenant hands. This over-development creates stress for existing residents.
   It is stressful simply contemplating the unsympathetic proposal for the site. We urge the council to look closely at the concerns of neighbours and scrutinise this over-development within this estate. It’s a far too greedy proposal which is out of touch with existing properties, raises safety concerns, including physical and aesthetic congestion, affects the valuation of surrounding properties built within this supposedly ‘acreage estate’ and is consequently not wanted on the doorstep of existing residences. The council has only sent notification to 3 affected neighbours, yet word spread in disbelief of the proposal! Neighbours were aghast with disappointment. I dare say that if council were to survey all of the residents in this particular area/estate, it would be an almost unanimous call to objection to the over-development of this beautiful area and this particular site. Residents would vote NO to greedy developments of multiple dual residences on once large acreage blocks! Again, we urge you to consider community concern against this proposal and insist developers rethink this design and the impact it has on the neighbours. Build quality NOT quantity!
   Sincerely, R & B van de Wijgaart

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