PlanningAlerts

14 Comments

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

1. This greedy developer already got Council approval for over 200 apartments in towers up to 6 levels in sleepy Ashbury which is a low rise Heritage protected suburb with no public transport, shops or infrastructure. Here they now want to appeal the Council decision to apply for up 400 apartments in up to 10 story towers!

2. The same is happening in Close St, Canterbury - and "upgrade" to 439 apartments for this site, madness for a narrow dead end street!

3. We said no last time and we'll day no again. Reasonable development is acceptable, but no more. This is extreme and unwelcome.

4. I must say that I was astounded to learn that the proposed development sites want rezoning to R4 which is absolutely not in keeping with the look and feel of Ashbury, considering that it is in the centre of a heritage conservation suburb. I am not against redeveloping the sites, I only request a common sense approach be taken considering the position of the sites and the public school and transport needs it will require. Would not terrace style homes, townhouses or villas be a better option for the sites?

5. The proposed development sites are poorly serviced by public transport (a bus every half an hour, often too overcrowded to stop) and surrounded by narrow, traffic dense roads that were never designed for the current traffic, let alone the traffic that would come with the dramatic increase in population. The local school is not equipped for more students - they do not even have the land area to add more demountables so increasing their population is not an option. Nor is it an option for other local schools to broaden their boundaries to compensate as they are also at teeming point. In addition to this the buildings will be surrounded by houses that will lose all of their privacy. We will have hundreds of strangers looking straight into our backyard and lounge room.

6. Ashbury is a small community of 1,106 households with limited access to public transport and no major shops. Milton Street is already a major thoroughfare between Parramatta Road and Canterbury Road. Adding and extra 400+ cars based on the proposed size of the development is not the way to go. 10 stories in Ashbury, plus the mobile phone towers that already occupy the Chubb site roof is the definition of over development. No one can tell me that Sydney needs more apartments... apart from a developer.

   It's about the vibe.

7. Ashbury is a small community which could not cope with the massive over development proposed at the top of the suburb. It lacks the necessary infrastructure to deal with a huge influx of people. Ashbury has limited transport links and the local school is already at capacity. It is also covered by a Heritage Order, which must be considered. Ashbury has the order placed on it to preserve its unique character. The residents must abide by these rules, so then why turn around and allow the construction of high rise buildings in the middle of single storey houses? It makes no sense. Please consider the community, consult it and put their needs first, before the short term interests of the developer. After all, it is the community who will have to live with the consequences long after the developer has gone.

8. The current plans to build a high rise apartment complex a twenty minute walk from the nearest train station, or alternatively expect the additional residents to travel on already stretched bus routes (413 and 491) really needs to be revised.

   Please do not permit R4 rezoning of this site. Make it R2 rezoning, to match the rest of Ashbury.

   If they need to fit in more people, why not make townhouses/duplexes in keeping with the Heritage Conservation Order that the rest of Ashbury already adheres too.

9. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the developer's plans for this site. The developer's over development plans are pure greed, it is all about maximising profit and ignores the heritage zoning and lack of public transport and infrastructure in Ashbury. The developers plans do not care about the residents of the area and what affect this over development and potential doubling of the suburbs population will have on the amenity of the surrounding suburbs.

   I am not an a nimby, I accept there will be some level of development on that site but it should be appropriate for the area and provide housing that people and families actually want to live in (e.g. townhouses) and not just be a cash cow for developers to sell to negative gearing investors.

   The canterbury area is currently being overdeveloped with massive increases in population and traffic. No regard was paid by the previous council to residents and rate payers concerns and many have lost all faith in state and council planning processes. I bring your attention to last Saturdays's article in the Sydney Morning Herald please read it before making any decisions on this site.
   http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/a-local-council-a-developer-and-an-empty-block-of-land-worth-50m-20170123-gtx2ji.html

10. I strongly believe that plans for high rise in this location is wrong. Please look for alternative solutions. I agree with a rezone to R2 and create villas or townhouses in keeping with the existing local Streetscape.

    There are plenty of people who would be happy to downsize but don't want to live in units - creating townhouses or villas with outside areas as an alternative will provide an opportunity for people to move out of the houses, stay in the area with family/friends and support networks and also open up opportunities for people/families to move into the area.

    The school buses that service the area are overflowing with students and the train station is a good twenty minute walk from Ashfield and Canterbury stations so we know people will rely on cars which will increase traffic on the already congested roads.
    Alternatively they will have to use the already stretched bus routes (413 and 491).
    
    It seems ironic that a proposal for high rise in this area is even being considered. When we applied to Council for DA to complete renovations works at our property we were hauled over the coals because of conservation issues - an important note was 'not keeping in line with the existing buildings' - and they were talking about our garage and the back lane!

    Be smart and community focused and don't over develop this site. Leave the high rise for the main roads and transport hubs

11. Ashbury, under the Canterbury Development Control Plan, is defined as an 'R2 Low-Density Residential' suburb. It should be emphasised that a high-density residential development does therefore not belong in Ashbury. It should be noted that any and all developments 'out of character' in Ashbury have been approved based on 'merit'. On what grounds is this merit granted? In what scenario would it acceptable to place a high-density residential development in a suburb characterised by its abundance of heritage controlled homes? What merit is to be seen here?

    Moreover, have upgrades to public transport and infrastructure been proposed also? Residents already struggle with unreliable public transport systems, particularly the 491 and 413 buses.

12. The planning authority has the ability to leave their lasting legacy on our suburb...not by way of construction but preservation!

    We need to stop wallpapering over the history of our special suburbs like Ashbury so developers can make a quick buck, ruin a whole suburb and then move onto the next one!

13. I understand that there is a requirement to be polite but please understand that what is written below is fact and is a brief summary of my experience over the last few years in this matter.
    I am a resident in Milton Street, Ashbury and have lived here for about 35 years. I live opposite the proposed rezoning of land and I strongly oppose the proposed zoning of R4. I oppose both the developers proposal and the councils proposal as they both have no merit or contribute positively to the suburb or residents. Most of the residents in Ashbury do too as per the petition submitted to those involved. I know this because I was one of those in a group who door knocked the entire suburb of Ashbury. The petition said:
    1. No to R4 zoning
    2. We request community consultation/participation
    3. Rezoning and plans to be in keeping with Ashbury's heritage conservation order.
    For the last two and a half years we have made all reasonable attempts with Canterbury Council to work together with the developer, nothing. Because there is no requirement for council to converse with residents we have been simply ignored over this time whilst the developer had unlimited access with council having "informal" discussions and meetings. Residents had to educate themselves to understand the process, we are told it's very complex, there is no straight forward explanation of how this all works, but somehow it does because there are developments happening all over the state. This must mean there is a clear, transparent and precise process otherwise it could be suggested that everything that has occurred is based on a flawed system that no one is sure how it works. When we were told this developer was appealing the councils proposal, I called both NSW planning and Greater Sydney Commision and both didn't know where the appeal is heard or who it goes to. I am not against development, simply over development, in particular where it will burden the areas infrastructure such as transport, schools, hospitals etc.
    There was a time when people would ask "where is Ashbury?" When I said where I live, I have seen many families move into Ashbury to escape the concrete jungles and excess of high density living. For this reason Ashbury is a tightly held suburb (I work locally and I talk to a lot of people because if my job). My parents live there and bought my own house there too.
    People moved to Ashbury because of its character homes, you know, ones with big backyards and driveways, so much so that some time ago Ashbury became a heritage conservation area.
    Now, two developers buy these two sites in Ashbury, one which is seeking this review, but the land is zoned Light Industrial knowing that these sites are under the heritage conservation orders. But Canterbury Council then systematically dismantled the foundations of the heritage conservation order so that it is not worth the paper it is written on. Resident are told that old reports have been superseded, here is the new one that benefits the developer. I have never seen blatant disregard to residents from council, those that are supposed to represent the best interests of residents, but now, they too are dismantled and being investigated by ICAC. I know developers that's would not have touched that site because of the current zoning and location distance to shopping and transport. But somehow these developers bought these sites with confidence.
    Instead of conducting studies and reports of the sites residential potential and impact on Ashbury, council sided with developers to produce a product of over exaggerated bulk and scale for the purpose of profit. Council say "we are following state objectives, we have to do something". That cannot be the only answer! This is not a state objective, the rules have been created and changed to suit a broad picture, all the details about merit and impact can be worried about later. This can be done because the "process" allows for it, no one has to worry about impacting an entire suburb which is at capacity because of major developements in Ashfield and Canterbury. Ashbury residents have to live with it the rest of their lives. Did you know in 2008 Ashfield had a dwelling count of approx 10,000 properties, because of rezoning over the years these is now approx 14,500 dwellings and that doesn't include the ones still being built and not even started. But the transport and shops and medical facilities have not adapted to cope and is at breaking point. I don't want to do the numbers around Canterbury station but a short walk around tells me it's far worse and there is still Meriton looking to buy Canterbury racecourse, or is that deal done? Look at nearby Burwood, they need police to regulate traffic because the infrastructure cannot cope with simple traffic trying to get in tot the shopping mall. State objectives must factor for areas of Sydney that cannot be developed further. Each area must have an assessment of validity or "merit". Just because someone has purchased a big block of land it doesn't mean that they can build whatever they want. This rezoning would set a precedent on future developments in Ashbury.
    My understanding of town planning tells me it is unusual for a high density zoning to boarder low density zoning on the back fence and different heights within the same zoning are difficult to attain from council. The street is normally used as a buffer zone with step downs to allow a seamless transition from low to high density. There is nothing in this proposal. Essentially Canterbury Council ( I should say former council) specifically worked with the developer on this project, the only ones who will benefit. The former councillors are no longer active to follow through their own work they supported or even be liable for the detrimental impact this zoning will have. Is anyone liable?Even if the councils proposal is approved, the zoning hasn't changed meaning that at a later time an amendment can be made to the FSR and height. Ausgrid tried to rezone R2 to R3 and got rejected. How is it that R4 got this far?
    High density is not suitable in Ashbury due to its location, it is isolated and away from the huddle and bustle.
    There is no infrastructure to support additional dwellings and facilities such as gas, water and electricity. Bus transport is non existent, train stations are more than 20 minutes walk, local schools are at capacity. What has to happen for these things to be looked at? Are they not an important factor?
    Ashbury is a heritage conservation area, it has to mean something. Because the rules allow it, this has gone too far in this process and it needs to be reviewed from the beginning with transparency. Those that supported this project are no longer in a position to follow this through. New administrators have been appointed and unaware of the residents work and concerns. I can go on but I think the other comments from other residents cover what I want to say. Thank you.

14. Please do not put high rise on this site. It deserves to be developed sympathetically to the area, which means low rise, not higher than the existing trees. Our whole community want the site developed using the Heritage and Conservation order and with genuine community participation and consultation. We are united. We welcome affordable housing and high quality development. We welcome infrastructure, great design, more trees and serious planning. For example Ashbury needs more frequently running buses, dedicated cycling ways to the city and school, and shops, a larger playground for the school, more and better parkland. This particular site and the oval in front of it needs landscaping. Some public space, gardens and piazzas would be wonderful and add huge value. Please design for the long term not for maximum profit and greed. Please design for beauty and public good and health. The soil may need remediation.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to NSW Sydney and Regional Planning Panels. 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