PlanningAlerts

4 Comments

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

1. Central Rd Avalon is a narrow Rd & cannot cope with 12 more occupants each with a car or two. It will create more traffic, the senior occupants may have difficulty coping with oncoming traffic in both directions on such a narrow road with parking on both sides as well as being a bus thoroughfare & garbage trucks on Tuesday. It will be hazardous to pedestrians elderly & young and people on bikes. There are only two roads from Barrenjoey Rd via Avalon Village that can access Clareville - Avalon Parade & Central. Why make Central Rd anymore congested with multi dwelling developments? It is the developer that profits from this construction, not the surrounding local community. Isn't there enough Senior living developments already along Central Rd??

2. Central Road is a narrow quiet residential street. It already has problems with circulating traffic, as parking is allowed on both sides virtually making it navigable in only one direction at a time, which often causes issues. Buses often have problems making it past all these parked cars. Any increase in residential or other development density will only exacerbate this growing problem.

3. Dear Angela Manahan,
   Case worker on No: No512/17
   I am the resident of 67 Central rd Avalon adjacent to 69 Central rd.
   I strongly object to the proposed development at 69-71 Central rd Avalon of 12 units of 2/3 storeys high by applicants
   Russell Whitaker ( Tucker Holdings Pty Ltd )
   Raymond Chang
   Bei Jiang.
   There are 6 fundamental grounds in my opinion for rejection.
   1: The bulk and size of this construction does give rise to unacceptable residential amenity impact on:
   Acoustics- with the driveway/ 2 storey underground car park being adjacent to bedrooms of 67 central rd. Construction noise will be horrific for approx. 2 years.
   Visual privacy and outlook from house and garden-
   The proposed 3 storey units are set back only 14m, 3 m from the east/ west fence- roof eaves breaching compliance.
   As a mother with young children I feel threatened by the sheer no. of potential people looking at my children in the garden.
   Solar aspect - shadow diagram indicates that at 3 pm 21st June almost the entire garden at 67 central road is in shade from height and bulk of units.
   Potential for efficient solar panels on house will be void.
   2: the road network cannot accomodate the present traffic. Future traffic generated by construction work, elderly residents of the 12 units, visitors and tradesmen will be diabolical.
   The safety of the community will be at risk.
   3: the bulk and scale of this and future developments would be inconsistent with the current strategic direction of Central rd, Avalon community.
   4: the building forms would have poor street scape, poor transitional relationships to surrounding houses and compromise residential amenities to existing and future residents.
   5: concerns arise over existing flood plains and elderly residents of proposed units.
   6: there are already numerous senior developments in the area which are not full, this proposed development of 12 units would decrease their value.

4. I strongly object to the DA 69-71 Central Road, Avalon on grounds of: 1. bulk & scale of the proposal is not in keeping with the area's amenity. Way too big. 2. Destruction of existing trees and habitat for our local dwindling native flora & fauna. 3. Central Road cannot cope with any more traffic. Basically a single lane street as is because of parking on both sides of road & heavy traffic. Buses find it virtually impossible to navigate currently. Will only get significantly worse with further unnecessarily big developments like this proposal with realistically at least 2 more cars for each apartment. Kids trying to ride their bikes or walk to the several nearby schools are put in danger every day with the current traffic - only made worse by further large scale development like this. 4. Set back is insufficient. 5. Too many senior development currently that are empty, or are unsellable due to over supply. 6. On a floodplain so should not be used for large developments with seniors who may need to be evacuated and will be put in danger.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Pittwater 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