47 Anzac Road Long Jetty NSW 2261

The proposed development exceeds optimal population density levels for the site. The suburb has aesthetically improved recently and developers should be encouraged to assist the suburb achieve its full aesthetic potential.

The proposed development falls well short of that and appears to have the characteristics of low grade institutional accommodation. A slum in the making

The proposed development will be ugly and may adversely impact on nearby property values.

Is this development going to be for more Public Housing as the area has been saturated with this kind of development. ...very unfair to those who have worked hard and bought their property to be now swamped on every side with residents who will never work as we just don't have the jobs or transport. ..it is so detrimental to our community !Come on Council have a more positive approach please no more public housing within a radius of 5kms of this area.

I am against this proposed development and believe it will have a negative impact on the Long Jetty area, this is especially due to the height of 3 stories which will over look many backyards and cause shadow. The site is a very narrow block which is unsuited to the proposed number of units. With limited parking of 10 car spaces means there will be an overflow of cars on to the neighbouring streets causing parking issues and additional use of the roads. The roads are already in a deplorable state with grass and weeds growing through in many areas of Anzac Road and surrounding streets. Additionally, there is an old gum in the property adjoining that native birds such as Kookaburra's and Galah's frequent, I am concerned for the wildlife of the area as this tree will likely not make it through the development of this block. As other comments suggest there has been a surge of public housing in the area over the last 5 years - with units already in Kitchener Road, Gosford Avenue and The Central Coast Hwy - all within a 1-2 km radius of this development. There are limited jobs and transport facilities in this area and I find this new development will present additional stress on local resources if it proceeds. Please reconsider.

I strongly object to this Public Housing development for the following reasons:
* Immediate and significant drop in the value of surrounding properties, including mine.
* Immediate increase in unemployed persons living in the Long Jetty area.
* Home/contents insurance premiums will rise significantly due to area being considered "high risk theft" area (due to unemployed tenants in Public Housing block).
* The proposed development is way too big for the nominated block of land.
* Parking in the area will quickly become a nightmare due to the overflow of cars from the Public Housing block.
* A three storey building will block natural light filtering into existing surrounding properties.
* A three storey building will mean that unemployed tenants will be able to see into the personal and private space of surrounding properties.
The Long Jetty area has been saturated with Public Housing blocks over recent years, it is time to move this problem to another area. Already existing within the area are Public Housing blocks in Toowoon Bay Rd, Kitchener Rd, Gosford Ave and The Central Coast Highway. I do not want to see any further Public Housing developments in Long Jetty, we have had our fair share and we have had enough.

I STRONGLY object to this proposed development of Public Housing in our immediate area. I concur with Catherine Shelvey & Lisa Clark's comments that have preceded my comment. I have just bought into a complex near this "proposed" development & selected the area because of it's vibrant potential & charm. I feel that any further development of MORE Public Housing would be detrimental to the potential of this charming suburb. Lots of new renovations & transformations are evident as you drive around our immediate area & that exhibits growth and potential. This development will stagnate that. Evidence has shown (not only here on the Central Coast but other areas as well), cluster Public Housing (refer to Lisa Clark's comment) has an adverse effect on insurance policies & security requirements by the adjoining owners or their tenants. NO to this proposal!!

Long Jetty it is time to Rise Up ! After several meetings with David Mehan re the saturation of Public Housing in our local area I am convinced the situation will remain whilst he holds office. As our local member I thought his role was to represent the concerns of his constituency. I am a long- term resident and know that it is of great concern that our constituency is receiving an arrogant response to our concerns. David Mehan does not live or has long -term history in this area. Long Jetty is trying to develop a Trendy look different to other areas on the Coast and has the potential to do so but will be stymied if David Mehan is permitted to continue on his current path. Come on council we need your help now to encourage employed families into Long Jetty with corresponding opportunities with attractive Real Estate.

I am most concerned that the proposed development is not only out of character with its immediate environment but also that the scale of the building on such a narrow block will detract from the appearance of the surrounding street-scape and introduce ugliness well beyond what is acceptable for the suburb of Long Jetty.

The proposal is suggestive of low grade public housing or a poorly designed school. It should not be permitted to proceed.

Objection to DA 209/2018
I Wendy Murdoch am the owner of [address removed]. My property runs along the side of the proposed development at 47 Anzac Rd Long Jetty. I strongly object to the Development Application 209/2018 for the following reasons:

• The development does not comply with DCP requirement’s in regards to boundary setbacks. The side and rear setbacks are to be a minimum 6 meters from boundaries and a frontal setback of 7.5 meters. None of the development setbacks comply with the standards. The objective of these setbacks are -

1. To maintain existing streetscapes.
2. To protect the privacy and solar access of adjacent properties.
3. To ensure the visual focus of a development is the dwelling not the garages or
parking facilities.
4. To maximise building separation to provide visual and acoustic privacy to neighbouring properties.

• The scale of the development is far too large for the property in height, width and length.

• The winter sun will be blocked out completely and the summer sun, will be very limited for the neighbouring villas at 1-3 Kitchener Rd Long Jetty because of the height and scale of the development. The impact on units 1 and 5 that border the development will be immense. They will not only lose all their solar access, as shown on the DA, they will completely lose their privacy. This is not acceptable at all!

• The development will create a significant fire hazard for not only for it’s residents but neighbouring residents and property due to the size and setbacks of the development.

• Access space for emergency vehicles will be limited due to the non compliance of the development.

• Central Coast Council required a Social Impact Assessment from the applicants of the development. As of the writing of this submission it still has not been submitted. The applicant claims there will be no adverse impact on the surrounding areas amenity however, without the required Social Impact Assessment that claim has no bearing.

• The development is for 20 units, which could house up 60 people, however only provides parking for 10 to12 cars. The applicants are relying heavily on on street parking in Anzac Rd which will have a huge impact on the current and future residents and on the road itself. Anzac Rd is for most part without kerb and guttering or footpaths.
The danger to pedestrians and residents, who already have to walk on the road in wet weather due to not having footpaths, will be immense due to extra traffic and on street parking caused by the development.

• In the last few years alone, Long Jetty has been the site of at several very large Affordable Housing developments, all within less than a 1 km radius of Anzac Rd. NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics (BOSCAR) show that there is a high correlation and long history between, unemployment, drug and alcohol abuse and higher crime rates in areas with a high number of Affordable Housing/Public Housing developments. Causing an increase of home and contents insurance costs for residents. Also higher rates of noise issues and anti social behaviour.

• According to NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics (BOSCAR) in September 2017 the Central Coast postcode of 2261 is the drug capitol of the region, highlighting Long Jetty as “the suburb of choice for cocaine dealers, ranked only second to Guildford in Sydney” Proving that Long Jetty already has a large and very serious drug problem which may be exacerbated by continuing to introduce Affordable Housing/Public Housing to the area.

• Not only has there been an influx of Affordable Housing/Public Housing developments in Long Jetty and surrounding suburbs, there are several motels in the local area that are being leased to The Department of Family and Community Services (FACS) and being used as Affordable Housing as well.

• As of 2016, the Central Coast areas of Long Jetty, Toowoon Bay, Shelly Beach, The Entrance, North Entrance, Bateau Bay, Killarney Vale and Tumbi Umbi combined, already had over 16000 Affordable Housing/Public Housing properties. Showing there is not a shortage of Affordable Housing/Public Housing in these areas. This is according to atlas.id.com.au. A company commissioned by the Central Coast Council and many other Australian Local Councils, to deliver data on particular population groups such as the elderly, disadvantaged, students, public transport users and Affordable Housing/Public Housing rentals in their electorate .

• The development is completely out of character, not only to Anzac Rd but to the whole of Long Jetty. It does nothing towards integrating with the nature of Long Jetty. It will however, lower the appeal of the suburb dramatically and destroy the improvements that have been made by residents and local businesses alike.

• According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics the Central Coast unemployment rate is 6.4%. With youth unemployment at 17.9%. With the huge lack of jobs and limited public transport in The Entrance/Long Jetty area, the impact of continually building Affordable Housing developments is highly detrimental to the suburbs and it’s residents.

• The surrounding infrastructure is suffering as it is not able to keep up with the high rate of people being introduced to the area. Long jetty does not have any schools. The Entrance Public Primary school is the only one within a 1.2km distance from the development site. Other public primary schools are at least 5.5km away and the closest public high school (years 7 to 10) being at least 8.8km away.

• Wyong Hospital and Gosford Hospital are the only public hospitals on the Central Coast. Both are struggling to accommodate the current community’s needs.

• Statistics also show that the value of surrounding properties in areas with a higher rate of Affordable Housing/Public Housing developments can drop by up to 20% according to reputable property valuation website ripehouse.com.au

• Long Jetty is notorious for having low water pressure. Especially in two story developments. Due to the recent influx of people to the area the problem has and will continue to get worse.

• The impact from building such a huge development on surrounding residents will be enormous. The constant noise, dust, drilling, digging, machinery etc will be ongoing for a considerable amount of months. This will have a huge impact on people’s physical and mental health which is not acceptable.

I am the parent of an intellectually disabled child that cannot cope with loud noise and changes to her environment. The development will completely change our outlook and block the winter sun completely and restrict the summer sun dramatically to our courtyard as previously stated. The development will tower over my property and we will lose all privacy and the ability to go outside in our own private space without the concerns of being watched. This is a clear invasion of our privacy. The fear that this instils in me for my daughter and myself is immense. I have always felt safe and secure living here. However if this outrageously imposing Affordable Housing/Public Housing Development goes ahead, our sense of safety and security will no longer exist and our comfort levels in our own home will drop drastically. I have spoken to many surrounding residents and they all feel the same way. I firmly believe that no consideration what so ever has been given to surrounding residents. The lack of a Social Impact Assessment and the enormous scale of the development confirm my beliefs.

I hope that the Central Coast Council and State Government Planning Department consider the people of their electorate and quash this and any future such inappropriate developments.

Thank you
Wendy Murdoch

OBJECTION TO DEVELOPMENT 209/2018 at 47 ANZAC ROAD, LONG JETTY
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF 20 RESIDENTIAL FLATS
CENTRAL COAST COUNCIL - ATTENTION APPLICATION CO-ORDINATOR

We, Elaine and Graham Andrews, as the owners of number 5 Kitchener Rd Long Jetty, wish to lodge our strong objection to the proposed development of number 47 Anzac Rd Long Jetty, Development Application Number 209/2018 for the following reasons:
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009
Occupancy to land size ratio
Negative effects on surrounding property values
Inadequate allowance for vehicle parking
Inadequate space for waste and recycling bin storage
Potential soil contamination of the site
Negative effects on ground water drainage to surrounding properties
Increased levels of visual and noise pollution in the surrounding properties
Decreased potential for surrounding households to install solar panels
Negative impact on the mental health well-being of neighbouring residents

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Despite the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009 applying Council’s LEP still needs to be considered. We note that residential flat buildings are permitted in the zone but would not be permitted on this scale.
Councils DCP would also prohibit the scale of this development and approval would set an undesirable precedent for the area .
Council is also obliged to consider the likely environmental impacts on the natural and built environments together with the social and economic impacts in the locality. We feel our livelihoods and those of our neighbours would be severely impacted hence Council could not consider that the development is appropriate.
The site is clearly not suitable for the development and is therefore not in the public interest.

Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009
If the development is lodged under division 5, we cannot understand how the Director General/Secretary could issue a site compatibility certificate as the development would negatively impact existing uses in the vicinity in terms of the excessive bulk and scale and limited services and infrastructure.
The development is totally out of context with its surroundings, and it would be irresponsible to allow the proposed density and demographics where there is limited employment opportunities, health care, public transport and access to commercial areas.
We cannot see how this development could be compatible with surrounding land uses. The crime rate is fairly high, shops are closing down, and resources for mental, physical and spiritual health are highly stretched. Surely this kind of development is better located closer to established commercial and high density residential areas where resources and support are more available, rather than a established low density area which already struggles with services and infrastructure
We also feel that the development could have an adverse effect on the environment and there would be unacceptable risks to the land to both the natural and built in environment.
We do not see how such a development could be endorsed as meeting the objective of SEPP 65 for design excellence.

Occupancy to land size ratio
Previous similar developments in the suburb have been on much larger parcels of land being at least 2 or more residential blocks. Designing a complex that condenses 20 units onto a single block, circumventing existing local planning rules under the weak guise of affordable housing exemption, is not in keeping with the surrounding land usage and is an insult to the existing rate paying, voting residents. As a local resident I have a right to be part of the decision process involved given that such development proposals have the potential to completely change the dynamic of my neighbourhood.

This is not the type of situation where a resident has purchased next to an airport and subsequently seeks to complain and make changes. We purchased our property 37 years ago in an area only containing single occupancy dwellings. We do not feel that change should never occur and accept that development and change is inevitable however the scope of this proposal is outrageous and in no way in keeping with the local property attributes.
The nearest similar three story development at 10-12 Sutton road we feel was a poor planning outcome, however at least are provided with reasonable privacy, generous setbacks, adequate parking and private open space, separation of buildings into one, two and three story components, established landscaping, and appropriate density being only seventeen units on a much larger site. Other existing higher density developments in the area are low scale single and two story apartments and town houses and accordingly these existing developments have a lesser impact on surrounding established low density dwellings.
Negative effects on surrounding property values
We have had an opportunity to read submissions by other neighbours and have spoken with them directly and have noted a common theme being the perception that affordable housing tenants are unemployed and troublesome. We do not necessarily share such a belief however we feel it would be fair to state that the tenants of the proposed 20 unit development are an unknown quantity.
Research into the impact on property values where affordable housing complexes exist nearby does not support an increase or even maintenance of property values. Most literature and expert opinion suggests a decline in surrounding values. One paper published in the Journal of Planning Literature in (Nguyen 2005) analysed 17 studies pertaining to the adverse effects of affordable housing on property values. It concluded that the amount of property value decline was highly influenced by the compatibility of the affordable housing complex with the host neighbourhood. We do not see this proposed development being compatible with our neighbourhood and anticipate a significant decrease in the value of our property and others. How many other 20 unit complexes exist on single blocks locally? Does the developer and Central Coast Council propose to compensate the surrounding residents for the foreseen and avoidable drop in values of their properties?
A search of local property sales quickly revealed one potential example of property value decline adjacent to large high density housing complexes. 38 Norberta St, The Entrance is an older construction, 4 unit complex situated next to a new multi-level high density unit complex on Oakland Ave, The Entrance. In 2001 and 2002 three of the units were sold by private treaty with the sale prices being publicly available. These same three units were sold again in 2014 around the time of construction of the high density complex and the sales figures show a decrease in property values of $10,000, $15,000 and $25,000. In just over a decade and despite known market growth, the value of these units declined significantly.
The scope of this development is in no way in keeping with the existing residential character of the area and must not be approved.

Inadequate allowance for vehicle parking
The development plans show on-site parking allowance for ten vehicles. Ten vehicle spaces for a 20 unit complex. How is this reasonable? Where would the expected additional vehicles, be it residents or visitors park? Presumably on the street in Anzac Rd or perhaps in Kitchener Rd.
Anzac Rd is far from the quiet street suggested and is a thoroughfare, particularly in the morning or evenings, for vehicles entering or exiting The Entrance Rd and other intersecting streets .
Anzac Rd is already in poor condition with grass or weeds growing through the pavement and no curb and guttering in the area proposed and much of the street. Additional vehicles parking on the roadway will augment the deterioration.

Inadequate space for waste and recycling bin storage
The presence of 40 rubbish and recycling bins on the street on the nominated bin day would not be logistically possible, presenting safety and public health concerns, not to mention additional issues due to the vehicles already parked on the roadway due to the inadequate parking allowance.
Perhaps a large industrial size rubbish bin may be suggested by the developer to overcome this issue. This would then present a perfect location for other non-residents to dump unwanted rubbish making this solution also inappropriate.
Potential soil contamination of the site
neighbours of 47 Anzac Rd we can attest to many years where the property resembled a dumping ground, a construction equipment storage facility and small scale automotive vehicle dismantling facility. On many occasions we observed vehicles of various types stored and dismantled on the property, likely leading to fuel, oil and coolant soil contamination. I can provide photographs on request, however Councils historic aerial mapping images will confirm this is the case . On one occasion a neighbour heard a very loud crashing sound which turned out to be a large waste skip lifting truck rolling over onto it's side, a Crane was needed to lift the truck upright again. Have adequate soil contamination studies been undertaken? As neighbouring residents we request these be made available to ascertain the presence of health risks or exposure during any development.
Environmental Considerations
This was once a reasonably green block that contained many eucalyptus trees that were home to many bird and animal species including a family of Tawny Frog-mouths living in an old growth paper bark tree. The owners of the property removed all vegetation and several large trees behind the dwelling following Council’s change in rules, after severe storms in 2015 despite having minimal storm damage. The development application appears to make inadequate allowance for trees and other flora to support the local fauna and lower the water table and should not proceed because it is environmentally irresponsible.
Negative effects on ground water drainage to surrounding properties
During and after periods of moderate to heavy rain the area of and surrounding 47 Anzac Rd experiences significant ground water pooling. One only need dig 40 to 50cm to find water, demonstrating a high level water table which given the proximity to the ocean raises alarm bells with regards to acid sulphate soils.
Developments frequently involve raising the existing ground level with fill prior to construction. This would exacerbate the existing water pooling problem resulting in neighbouring residents suffering unacceptable costs for remedial works to rectify an issue that they did not create.
Has an appropriate hydrology impact study been undertaken? Neighbours have a right to know what negative impact could be expected and our objection to development includes the expectation of negative effects on ground water pooling in an already poorly drained area.

Increased levels of visual and noise pollution in the surrounding properties
We fail to see how any argument could be made contrary to the fact that the building of 20 units in a multi-story complex adjoining residential blocks will create significant visual and noise pollution issues.
We consider the proposed unit block to be visually offensive and obtrusive in terms of bulk, scale and poor design. Such a building would dwarf neighbouring buildings including a nearby residential flat building of a much smaller scale, dominating the view. With such a large building on a comparatively small block (by the circumvention of existing planning rules under the veil of affordable housing) there can be no room for trees or landscaping to reduce the visual and noise impact.
The sound of residents ascending or descending the external stairways alone would constitute noise pollution not to mention the noise generated by the residents of 20 units.
Decreased potential for surrounding households to install solar panels
Such a structure in an otherwise low level building area will no doubt prevent many adjoining residents from installing solar panel renewable energy systems. How is this responsible planning when contemporary renewable energy goals or planning philosophies advocate the implementation of renewable energy sources?
Approval of this development will deny other residents the opportunity to contribute towards renewable energy targets making it environmentally irresponsible at best.
Negative impact on the mental health well-being of neighbouring residents
As potentially effected residents we hold significant concerns regarding the social implications of such a development.
Issues such as changes to the local socio-economic structure, the effects of additional visual or noise pollution on neighbours and anxiety levels of neighbours increasing due to being watched from occupants of adjoining units in an elevated position are unknown and not addressed in the development application.
We note that Council requested a SIA at the pre-DA meeting, has this been carried out?
We have always enjoyed, throughout the ownership of this block, an acceptable level of residential privacy for our children and now our grandchildren. Our private open space would be in no way private if the scale of the development were to be allowed and we would be negatively affected to the point where we would no longer feel comfortable to allow our children to play in that space. Any Privacy screening to alleviate these concerns within our own property would not be permitted by Council as it would need to be of a similar scale to the development and trees would take years to grow and would not achieve the required privacy given the limited setback of our existing shed and the proposed development from our shared boundary.
As neighboring residents we would expect to see a thorough assessment of the social implications of such a development in the area and object to any development without the favorable provision of such a study.

Yours Sincerely
Graham and Elaine ANDREWS

I love this street. I have lived at No.35-37 Anzac Road for nearly six years in a townhouse and walk daily past No.47 and around to the park with my small dog. I do no think putting up a 3 storey affordable housing will fit our quiet amicable street that has so much character and history .
I am all for affordable housing, helping those that need help but I believe that clumping all these people together like a stack of logs is not the answer. Yes! build accommodation for them but perhaps accommodate only half the number proposed by designing some villas and townhouses that do not detract from the atmosphere of the already beautiful area that myself and my family and all my neighbours which include Kitchener St and Sutton Ave. enjoy and are most proud of.
I am not happy at all with this proposal. As my husband says (who has to park on the street) parking is of a premium! That is now! Imagine what it will be like with 20 units built 3 doors down the road.
Rethink! Think about us the people who already live here. Think about the area that you are going to spoil with a low affordable type housing. Think about the people who will be housed there. Think about what is right for our community. Think about our feelings and not the dollar!
Glenda Davison

I love this street. I have lived at No.35-37 Anzac Road for nearly six years in a townhouse and walk daily past No.47 and around to the park with my small dog. I do no think putting up a 3 storey affordable housing will fit our quiet amicable street that has so much character and history .
I am all for affordable housing, helping those that need help but I believe that clumping all these people together like a stack of logs is not the answer. Yes! build accommodation for them but perhaps accommodate only half the number proposed by designing some villas and townhouses that do not detract from the atmosphere of the already beautiful area that myself and my family and all my neighbours which include Kitchener St and Sutton Ave. enjoy and are most proud of.
I am not happy at all with this proposal. As my husband says (who has to park on the street) parking is of a premium! That is now! Imagine what it will be like with 20 units built 3 doors down the road.
Rethink! Think about us the people who already live here. Think about the area that you are going to spoil with a low affordable type housing. Think about the people who will be housed there. Think about what is right for our community. Think about our feelings and not the dollar!
Glenda Davison

I would like to object to the development of high density afforable housing at 47 Anzac Road Long Jetty.

As a resident of Anzac Rd, I believe the area will be compromised with a multi storey, high density, public housing units. I feel this development will be out of place and open the area up to further high right development and there is already there is far too much high density housing at the Entrance and in Long Jetty.

I have concerns such a development will decrease the value of my property, impact on my enjoyment of the area, present security issues and increase insurance costs, increase traffic and street parking in my street.

Elizabeth Ogrin, uni student, mother, volunteer, renter

I am assessing this property to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment.

I have read the comments of others to gain information, but instead the comments have upset me. when this happen, I am reminded of a quote from , "that people are basically good; that honor, courage and virtue mean everything; that money and power mean nothing; ... true love never dies." reminds me that people do the right things and are good. A few people commented about working all their lifes, more people with jobs and the need for working families.

I live in a private rental, not having a job, (because no one employs an over 50 something or whatever), I have to pay most of my money on rent. when I first moved into my present residents, (out of need, not choice), hated the flats. realized they are ok. realized that there are housos on each end of the street and realized that they were ok too. I also put it down to the fact I have not much to loose, everything I have is upcycled from the street.

Unfortunately for me I feel I have to justify myself. I have worked most of my adult life, but now on the other side. living on the central coast, single mother, moved 5 time in the last 7 years. I am over studied, have gone from working in an office for 15 yrs, working on vineyards and cleaning schools at 4 am to houses.

in making these comments, it would be of considered humanly that people think of those less fortunate.