Recent comments

  1. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Chelsey Zuiderwyk commented

    I am the Chairperson of the Greater Charlestown Sustainable Neighbourhood Group and I enter this submission on behalf of our group.

    The Greater Charlestown Sustainable Neighbourhood Group is an initiative of Lake Macquarie City Council and is run by volunteers in the community.

    As part of the formation of our group in 2014, a Sustainable Neighbourhood Action Plan was developed, which represents the goals and visions of the Greater Charlestown Community. There are five key objectives of this Action Plan¸ which the development of 142 Dudley Rd Whitebridge is at odds with:

    1 - Strong community spirit; the development in its previous and current form has been strongly opposed by the local community. The Greater Charlestown SNG urges the Joint Regional Planning Panel to consider the concerns of the community which have united in requesting a more sustainable and better designed development for the area. Our community has a strong community spirit that enhances the wellbeing of our community, and we would like this voice to be listened to and consulted.

    2 - Abundant healthy natural environment; the area to be developed currently provides a biodiversity corridor along Fernleigh track, which needs to be widened, not narrowed. This habitat corridor links Glenrock State Conservation Area, Awabakal Nature Reserve and Lake Macquarie Wetlands. This connection is vital to the ecological health of our remnant bushlands. We strongly request that when this land is developed, provision is made to widen the existing biodiversity corridor adjacent to Fernleigh track.

    3 - Well designed and used community infrastructure; the lack of infrastructure initiatives put forward in the proposal will lead to congested traffic conditions, parking restrictions, and a multitude of other hazards for pedestrians and the vast number of cyclists that access Fernleigh Track. We request that these considerations form an essential part of the development, so the development will be beneficial to our community.

    4 - Leading local sustainability initiatives and practices; the plan in its current form offers no initiatives in the way of sustainability best practice. We request that there are changes made to building design and layout to incorporate sustainability best practise knowledge.

    5 - Distinctive village feel; if approved in its current form, the distinctive village feel of both Whitebridge and neighbouring suburbs namely Kahibah and Dudley is at risk. The high rise and high density nature is not in keeping with the prized village feel that our community is proud of. We request that the development improves the central village feel of Whitebridge shops and does not detract from it.

    The proposed development of 142 Dudley Road Whitebridge requires a considerable amount of redesign before it can be considered a benefit to the community, or a sustainable initiative. We do not support the development in its current form and request that those reviewing the application take on board the concerns of The Greater Charlestown Sustainable Neighbourhood Group and consult our Sustainable Neighbourhood Action Plan to better understand the local community’s priorities and goals for our local area.

    Thank you

  2. In Hornsby NSW on “Residential - new multi...” at 240-242 Peats Ferry Rd Hornsby NSW 2077, NSW:

    Cyril Li commented

    Do you really think Hornsby needs 220 units in such an already high traffic area this is lunacy

  3. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Natalie Van Dyck commented

    To the General Manager,

    I am voicing my concern over this proposed development on Dudley Road. I am a home owner of Whitebridge.

    I am most concerned about social impact of such a dense development. I understand the need for more housing but do not want to see so many units and high units in one spot. When buying in this area we did so because of the small housing developments and independent houses definitely not mass housing.

    This land has long been used for recreation and the edges have been used for parking at Whitebridge shops. More parking is needed here not less.

    The traffic congestion is a particular problem around the roundabout and shops and is risky as you walk, ride or drive in this area.

    Thank you for listening to concerns.

    Mrs Natalie Van Dyck

  4. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Aaron porter commented

    This development does not seem to take into account the fact that traffic along dudley road will often be at a standstill as it has since the fences were installed, parking for the shops is often full and I line to enter the car park around the roundabout. I feel this would also be a problem for any emergency services using dudley road in peak times. I also have concerns about the density of the housing and lack of parking for occupants in the development

  5. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Douglas Kolisnyk commented

    Doug Kolisnyk
    10 Hudson Street
    Whitebridge 2290
    07/04/2015
    Lake Macquarie City Council
    The General Manager
    PO Box 1906
    Hunter Region Mail Centre 2310

    Dear Sir/Ma’am,
    Re: DA number:1774/2013
    Address: 142-146 Dudley Rd and 2-4 Kopa St, Whitebridge, 2290
    Applicant’s name: SNL Building Constructions Pty Ltd

    I have been a resident of Whitebridge for 25 years, I wish to register my opposition to the proposed development at 142-146 Dudley Rd and 2-4 Kopa St, Whitebridge.

    I have referred to the proposal’s Visual Impact Assessment (VIA), MSB-Conditional Approval, SNL’s DA Documents. REFERRAL RESPONSE IP – Strategic Planning.

    My concerns regarding this development are stated in my previous submissions. The following addendum highlights further concerns:

    SOCIAL IMPACT:

    The East Lake Intensification Corridor illustrated in a schematic map in the Lifestyle 2030 document shows the corridor along the highway from Charlestown to Belmont. Whitebridge is on the periphery of the zone. Council state there is no detailed map of the Zone which SNL greatly rely on in their final version of this DA. Therefore SNL’s use of this zone should be reinvestigated or dismissed.

    The existing infrastructure (roads, car parking, pre-schools) are at capacity and will not cope easily with the sudden increase in population and traffic. The suburb is poorly serviced by Government buses. People will need to travel to Charlestown for many services including banking, the post office. Charlestown is more than a 10 minute walk from this site.

    Integrated Planning advise that the proposed density is 42 dwelling per hectare and this is higher than that suggested as reasonable (30-40) for the regional centre of Charlestown. It should be possible to increase the supply of housing in the area by developing this site without excessive development. The lengthy planning process which has occurred could have been avoided if the initial proposal was more compatible with the surrounding area and sensitive to the adjacent environmental corridor.
    There are also many inconsistencies with Lifestyle 2030 which have been outlined in detail in previous submissions.

    SNL’s table which “identifies development applications that were reviewed when informing the design process”. (Ref. SNL letter to LMCC, 23rd February, 2015)

    The examples provided by SNL support our argument that the proposal is totally inconsistent with the emerging character of the area, and therefore out of character even with the so-called “desired future” of Whitebridge.
    This proposal, with a net density of 54 dwellings per hectare, as stated on the architectural plans, is a massive overdevelopment of the site, and it does not fit with the existing character of the area or the desired future. The other recent developments referred to by SNL achieve the objective of increasing density in the area without having a devastating visual impact. (Ref LMCC Scenic Management Guidelines). They have not become the “dominant feature of the scene”, even those with a density over 40 dwellings per hectare, as shown in the table. The proponent should be required to comply with LMCC legislative and procedural guidelines.

    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

    The Community is entitled to ask why the DA has abused the area set aside for conservation and obviously part of the reason is that the proposed density of the development means that given the area of the site that is to be covered with buildings, roadways, paved surfaces is excessive it is essential to at least give token recognition that drainage and storm water issues need to be addressed. The DA demonstrates that the proposal has zero respect for the original rezoning reservations and this in turn may have ultimately devastating consequences for the Fernleigh Track (significant heritage, and community leisure/ transport resource) and the entire strip of conservation zoned lands adjoining the Track right down to the local government boundaries of Lake Macquarie and Newcastle.

    Encroachment of the proposed development on the adjoining conservation zoned land is in direct contravention of State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP19) that legislates that the purpose of Conservation zoning is protect plant and animal communities, wild life corridors and habitat. Many of the Community submissions in relation to the first two versions of this DA have indicated the vital importance of this particular parcel in contributing to that objective. It has been ignored by the Applicant in each revision and ultimately abused by the encroachment intended to facilitate development beyond that which is acceptable to the Community.
    The 20m wide conservation zone, as well as having pathways, stormwater basins and some
    limited planting of native trees, also has almost half of the road width of Street C, and its
    kerbside parking within this zone. The effective width of this 20m conservation zone, left for
    planting of native trees is reduced to 6-8m.

    DESIGN:

    Landcom define medium density as 20-40 dw/ha net, LS2030 use an example of 30-40
    dwellings per hectare as being appropriate for the regional centre of Charlestown.
    The density of this development is 45 dw/ha net. This puts the development in the high
    density range which is totally inappropriate. The “terrace-style townhouses along Kopa St” and through the rest of the site (Lots 2, 3, 4&1) are in fact classed as residential flat buildings, as such they should have been assessed under SEPP65.

    The proposed development on Dudley Rd, is actually one building with two sections linked by a partially underground car park. The portion of the car park linking the two sections is partially above ground. Therefore the “two buildings” are in fact one. This is a misleading fabrication by SNL which contravenes MSB requirement of building mass being less than 40 m in total length when in fact it’s double this amount.

    The “existing power poles on the opposite side of Dudley Road (estimated to be approximately 12m high)” are 10.5m, 11.2 and 11.8m. The new building is 14m high, a difference of over 2m, so is a full storey over the height of the shortest pole. The “existing two storey shops also on the opposite side of Dudley Road” are 7.6 and 8m high (2 storeys). The proposed buildings are 6 metres higher, a full 2 storeys higher not “an estimated 3m”. The “existing Whitebridge Cellars building is approximately 6m high”, this is the only correct reference point given, when measured to the top of the parapet. The flag poles do not add to perceived height. The LEP Dictionary specifically excludes the use of flagpoles when measuring the height of a building (pg. 59). The proposed building is a full 3 storeys higher, and 8m higher than the top of the parapet, not “5m”. As stated in the VIA, it is “immediately next to Whitebridge Cellars”, and this would accentuate the sizable height difference. The height of the existing Camphor Laurel tree is not given, but has been measured at 10m. The building would be 4m higher, not the stated “2m higher”. Therefore Section 4.2 highlights how the VIA relies on incorrect, approximate estimates. This then makes all observations and statements based on them questionable.

    Several of the artist’s impressions in SNL’s VIA are flawed, as the proposed buildings are obviously not to scale, or in some cases these impressions are not provided from certain important viewpoints.

    TRAFFIC IMPACT:

    We understand that the developer, SNL, greatly relies on this unrefined interpretation (East Lake Intensification Corridor) of the map in their final version of this DA. When read in conjunction with maps for Movement Systems it is noted that there is no major road network supporting intensification. Since the abandonment of the East Charlestown Bypass and the axing of discussion related to the extension of Waran Rd, there has been no strategic intent offered to suggest how to strengthen the road system to deal with intensification in this immediate area. Predictions that the roundabout at the intersection of Dudley Rd, Bulls Garden Rd, Lonus Ave and Waran Rd will fail in the near future if predicted growth occurs will only be exacerbated if medium density rates in Neighbourhood Centres with little elasticity and no capacity for extending infrastructure have this level of density imposed on them.

    Existing infrastructure such as roads, car parking, pre-schools are at capacity and will not cope efficiently with the sudden and concentrated increase in population and traffic, despite assurances to the contrary provided by the developer. The suburb is poorly serviced by Government buses and no anticipated change in service has been suggested. People will need to travel to Charlestown for many services including banking, the post office, medical specialists etc. Charlestown the nearest transport hub is at least a 30 minute walk from this site.

    Conclusion:

    I respectfully request, that both Council and the JRPP reject the application as offered and suggest a significant downsizing of the proposal to accord with the initial projection of 40 dwellings at the time this land was rezoned. Integrate the development into the community and scale back to a density which can be accommodated into the environment and supporting infrastructures of our neighbourhood centre. I further suggest the need for integrity and quality in the design of the development and the reinstatement of permeability through the site to maintain the historic and public interest in this land.

  6. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Natalie Moore commented

    Wake up to yourself LMCC! A development of this size, at the proposed site or anywhere in Whitebridge for that matter is not suitable for this community.
    As many people have already mentioned, parking and general traffic at Whitebridge shops and along surrounding roads is already a joke. You need to rectify the current issues before you approve a monstrosity such as this development.

  7. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Drew and Heather Harper commented

    I do not approve of the development as the roads are to congested now and no thought has been put in for future infrastructure.
    There will be too many people in that development which will mean too many cars adding more congestion to a already overgrown suburb.
    The area should be made into parkland for the people who use the fernleigh track as a rest spot with toilet facilities.

  8. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Kylie Pheils commented

    I object to the development on Dudley Rd Whitebridge, DA 1774/2013.

    The height along Dudley Rd of 16 metres, 4-storeys, is entirely in opposition to the village atmosphere of Whitebridge, not to mention being well above the height limits as stipulated by LMCC. It will lessen the experience of shopping and frequenting the cafés on the shopping strip.

    The number of dwellings is entirely too high and indicates an opportunistic attitude on behalf of the developer. LMCC indicated the land was appropriate for 40-50 dwellings (even less considering that took into account land on the other side of Kopa Street) and the community agrees with this figure as being appropriate.

    Using the environmental corridor to achieve permeability of the site is a perfect example of the lack of good intention on the part of the developer.

    This development must be suitable for the area and enhance the suburb. Currently, Whitebridge is at risk of becoming a suburb of social unrest and discontent.

    To allow this development to go ahead would be irresponsible and would demonstrate that our council and decision makers are not responding to the community, but only to the developer's commercial interests as it is certainly not in the interests of the suburb of Whitebridge.

    Kylie Pheils

  9. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Niclas Hakansson commented

    Re: DA/1774/2013

    I wish to object to the development proposal 1774/2013. Although the developers have redesigned the development, they have ignored the biggest and most concerning issues, those being:
    • the negative social impact this type of development will have on a residential suburb;
    • the traffic and safety problems that will arise;
    • the disregard for negative environmental impact and;
    • the inappropriateness of the size and density of the development.

    Negative Social Impact:
    The fact that this development will not sit harmoniously with the existing suburb will create an ’us’ and 'them’ mentality which is inducive to crime. It will negatively impact upon the community-minded spirit of the neighbourhood. The pleasant, neighbourly atmosphere of this suburb will be destroyed. One development should not be allowed to negatively impact so many people. Whitebridge is a Neighbourhood Centre, according to the LMCC, so why is a development which follows guidelines for a Regional Centre
    being applied to Whitebridge? The local character of Whitebridge, which has existed
    over many generations, would be tragically changed forever. Whilst this land should and
    must be developed, current residents must not be subjected to such a mutation of their neighbourhood in order to satisfy the aspirations of a commercial developer. Additionally,
    future residents of new housing in Whitebridge should enjoy a feeling of belonging to and fusing with the community, rather than feeling detached due to such an obvious discordance in their living arrangements.

    The suggestion that 92 dwellings is appropriate on this piece of land is ludicrous, as is 3-4 storeys in a suburb of free-standing houses. The visual monstrosity will not be the only problem - higher density living is associated with negative social outcomes. It decreases social interaction of residents and detracts from a sense of community. Our suburbs should be nurtured if we are to further increase our quality of living and the desirability of our Local Government Area. The design report from the developer states, "The secondary dwellings will allow additional rental affordability." (page C:02) This implies the development is aimed as investment properties. This mismatch of demographics will also contribute toward changing the character of the suburb which is 81% owner occupied. When considering this new housing is all on one block, it is glaringly obvious that there is a mismatch with the current character of the suburb.

    Traffic and Safety Problems:
    Lonus Avenue is already at capacity during peak school times and to add an additional, say, 200 cars to this equation, coming in and out of Kopa St, onto Lonus, would be disastrous. The roundabout also already experiences traffic congestion at these times. The safety of pedestrians is at risk if this development is to go ahead. Families with prams accessing the park, Birral ee Daycare Centre, and Whitebridge Preschool on
    Tumpoa Street, school children walking to and from Whitebridge High and the general public accessing shops and facilities will be placed in a daunting position of navigating overly-busy roads and crossings. This is not the spirit of a ’Neighbourhood Centre’.
    It appears the developers are quite aware of this problem as they have obviously attempted to down-play the traffic situation in their report and have not appropriately addressed the characteristics of the area, that being a high pedestrian/cyclist zone. Additionally, the traffic survey took place on one afternoon only. There are no provisions for improved roads and/or traffic conditions in this application.

    Parking is also already a problem in Whitebridge, with cars parked along Dudley Road for people to access the shops and cafes. This impacts upon visibility for pedestrians and motorists. The 20 ’new’ carparks being offered by the developer are not technically ’new’ as the area being assigned to this is currently used to capacity as overflow parking from the formal carpark on Dudley Rd. It is inevitable that there will also be parking overflow from the development itself, considering the parking assigned in the DA is realistically not adequate for the number of dwellings.

    Negative Environmental Impact:
    I am very concerned about how arrangements for stormwater will impact upon the Fernleigh Track. The calculations appear flawed and the Track is in danger
    of being impacted during any periods of heavy rain. The 7(2) land should also remain independent from any use by the development.

    Safety and Traffic Problems:
    A single entry/exit point, that being Kopa Street, for 92 dwellings will clearly cause tremendous changes in traffic conditions not only in Kopa Street, but on Lonus Avenue, and the roundabout via which most drivers access Lonus Avenue. The adjacent park, which is used regularly, the tennis courts and the oval will become much less-pleasant places to frequent. This will break down community ties. The traffic along Lonus Avenue will also put families of the Birralee Long Day Care Centre at risk. Students accessing
    Whitebridge High School by foot along Lonus will be placed in greater danger, and families accessing Whitebridge Preschool in Tumpoa Street will be negatively affected. It
    is already difficult and sometimes dangerous for buses using Lonus Ave to access the high school.

    Conclusion:
    The way this piece of land is to be developed needs to be considered with much greater regard for both current and future residents of the area. If the development goes ahead in its current form, a disastrous precedent will be set for more of our suburbs to be developed in a similarly mindless and careless fashion.

    Niclas Hakansson

  10. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Brett Suprano commented

    I wish to express my opposition to the development on Dudley Road, Whitebridge DA 1774/2013.
    The developer has failed to address the issues that are of huge concern.

    The land was intended for 40-50 dwellings, which is still much more dense than the rest of Whitebridge, but which could still blend in with the suburb which should be the intention of any new development. The proposed number of 91 dwellings is mass over-development.

    Four storeys along Dudley Road demonstrates a lack of regard not only for community concerns, but also for council planning guidelines. The intended maximum number of storeys for a neighbourhood centre is HALF this.

    It is inappropriate and irresponsible to use the environmental corridor as a pathway from the Track to Dudley Road.

    Council’s Lifestyle 2020 and 2030 documents reflect the fact that urban consolidation is desirable, but there was surely no intention that it be achieved in such a drastic, thoughtless and inappropriate manner.

    It was once fortunate for Whitebridge that a large parcel of undeveloped land existed, as the possibilities were exciting – now it is extremely unfortunate as it could mean the destruction of the suburb as we know it.

    Brett Suprano

  11. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Lisa Suprano commented

    DA 1774/2013 – Development of Dudley Road/Kopa Street

    I strongly oppose the proposed development of Dudley Road and Kopa Street.

    I often walk to the shops or park with my friend and our children from Station Street. I am concerned about the safety of walking around Whitebridge with children in the event of an addition of 91 dwellings and their cars in the centre of the neighbourhood.

    I am also concerned about the traffic congestion that will occur. There will also be a dramatic increase in the number of pedestrians using the walkways and crossings, which will slow down the movement of traffic past the shops. The roads are already barely coping when considering the amount of movement around the suburb related to the shops, park, tennis court, oval, 2 preschools, highschool and general traffic passing through on the way to Dudley and Redhead.

    This development is not in keeping with the current character of Whitebridge. Whitebridge is a neighbourhood with a village-like atmosphere. A 91 unit, 3 to 4 storey development is totally out of character for this area. It will impact negatively on the atmosphere of the neighbourhood.

    The proposed development will look out of place in a neighbourhood where most dwellings are single-storey houses. Although it is inevitable that the area will increase in density over time given the zoning applied, to attempt to grow so drastically, all on one piece of land, in the heart of the neighbourhood, is inappropriate growth and will have devastating consequences for the suburb.

    The developement is also too close to the Fernleigh Track and will ruin the current tranquil experience of using the track. Also of concern is the developer's lack of regard for the Environmental Corridor which should remain undisturbed.

    The deciding body must act responsibly with a view to securing a positive future for the suburb.

    Lisa Suprano

  12. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Michele henderson commented

    Dear Development Assessment Officer and JRPP
    Submission regarding Amended Development Application DA/1774/2013 at 142 Dudley Road, WHITEBRIDGE NSW 2290
    I’m not opposed to development on the site, but ask the amended development application is modified so it is consistent with the culture, values and needs of our community, and supports the core values of Lake Macquarie’s Lifestyle 2030 Strategy.
    In particular, we ask the following issues with the proposed amended development application be addressed before the application is approved:
    1. Whitebridge is a two-storey suburb. The proposed four-storey buildings (with underground carpark) is unprecedented and too high. Buildings of this height will have adverse impact on the character and culture of our suburb and community. The design elements do not enhance the amenity of the area. There are significant shadowing issues which have not been addressed. The development should have a height limit of two stories. Design elements should be improved. Shadowing issues should be addressed.
    2. The proposed development is too dense. The number of dwellings should be reduced to approximately 60, which is reasonable given the size of the land, character of the suburb and the medium-density zoning.
    3. There is insufficient parking to accommodate the proposed extra commercial space plus visitors to people living in the new dwellings. The development should provide for additional parking to support the additional parking demand it will create.
    4. Local roads are already operating at capacity. The amended development application does not adequately provide for the increase in vehicle and pedestrian traffic that will result because of the additional residents and commercial activities. Failure to adequately address traffic impacts will result in a neighbourhood centre that is unsafe and congested, and will greatly reduce the efficiency and liveability of Whitebridge and surrounding suburbs including Dudley and Redhead. The development application should adequately address traffic impacts to ensure vehicle safety, pedestrian safety, and traffic flow are maintained.
    5. The development should reflect the principles of ecologically sustainable design.
    Thank you for your consideration. I trust these issues will be addressed so the final development design will enhance the Sustainability, Equity, Efficiency and Liveability of Whitebridge, rather than detract from it.
    Yours faithfully
    Michele Henderson

  13. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Scott Henderson commented

    Dear Development Assessment Officer and JRPP
    Submission regarding Amended Development Application DA/1774/2013 at 142 Dudley Road, WHITEBRIDGE NSW 2290
    I’m not opposed to development on the site, but ask the amended development application is modified so it is consistent with the culture, values and needs of our community, and supports the core values of Lake Macquarie’s Lifestyle 2030 Strategy.
    In particular, we ask the following issues with the proposed amended development application be addressed before the application is approved:
    1. Whitebridge is a two-storey suburb. The proposed four-storey buildings (with underground carpark) is unprecedented and too high. Buildings of this height will have adverse impact on the character and culture of our suburb and community. The design elements do not enhance the amenity of the area. There are significant shadowing issues which have not been addressed. The development should have a height limit of two stories. Design elements should be improved. Shadowing issues should be addressed.
    2. The proposed development is too dense. The number of dwellings should be reduced to approximately 60, which is reasonable given the size of the land, character of the suburb and the medium-density zoning.
    3. There is insufficient parking to accommodate the proposed extra commercial space plus visitors to people living in the new dwellings. The development should provide for additional parking to support the additional parking demand it will create.
    4. Local roads are already operating at capacity. The amended development application does not adequately provide for the increase in vehicle and pedestrian traffic that will result because of the additional residents and commercial activities. Failure to adequately address traffic impacts will result in a neighbourhood centre that is unsafe and congested, and will greatly reduce the efficiency and liveability of Whitebridge and surrounding suburbs including Dudley and Redhead. The development application should adequately address traffic impacts to ensure vehicle safety, pedestrian safety, and traffic flow are maintained.
    5. The development should reflect the principles of ecologically sustainable design.
    Thank you for your consideration. I trust these issues will be addressed so the final development design will enhance the Sustainability, Equity, Efficiency and Liveability of Whitebridge, rather than detract from it.
    Yours faithfully
    Scott Henderson

  14. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Sylvie Jacobi-McCarthy commented

    I oppose the development plans for 91 dwellings in Whitebridge. This proposed development would result in a jarring change to density that would have negative repercussions for the whole community, new residents included. I understand that low to medium density housing is most appropriate for this piece of land. The residents of Whitebridge want a development that is in keeping with our current community. Furthermore I have viewed the plans and I believe that this proposal ignores the ecological importance of the green corridor bordering the Fernleigh Track that runs between Glenrock State Conservation Area and the Awabakal Nature Reserve.

  15. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Beau Rouse commented

    I oppose this development in it's current form as it is inappropriate for the site and location. Other new town houses built in the area are a reasonable two storey height. My understanding is that these plans exceed the Lake Macquarie City Council 10m height limit for buildings by over 3m. Most importantly, the density proposed for this site does not align with the vision shared by LMCC and residents when this area of land was rezoned.

  16. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 62 Constitution Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    K.W commented

    Another day, another ridiculous application.

    Nine storeys - I think that is a first for the area. How is a monstrosity of this proportion in keeping with the area.

    18 x 1 bed units and 1 x 2 bed units. Parking provision - 12 spaces. Oh wow even the report submitted by Terraffic Pty Ltd confirms this is a shortfall. It does not take a genius to figure out that this is simply insufficient. Of those 12 spaces, 4 will be disabled? Hydraulic car lift - I do believe that Council has on a number of occasions said that this is not appropriate nor should it be. What happens if there is a system failure - cars are unable to get out of the parking lot or in.

    But wait, there will be many bicycle racks available and the public transport to the area is such that this should be an inducement to potential residents to use it and not vehicles. The fact that the light rail does not extend into the city centre nor does it extend further out west doesn't seem to be a problem - I disagree. The bus services - oh wow - again, the services in the area are great, NOT. The amount of traffic already on the major roads is proving a massive stumbling block for bus commuters, coupled with the fact that there are no enough services to carry commuters now. The possibility of widening Canterbury Road is not possible.

    The area is desirable yes. The area is steeped with beautiful period homes, a lot of which do not have off street parking due to their heritage. If Newtown has been able to stave off developers, why can't Marrickville Council.

    I strongly object yet again to the proposal of a potential urban ghetto being constructed.

  17. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Catherine James commented

    I am writing to register my concern and objection to the proposed Whitebridge development DA-1774-2013. I have submitted previous objections, however these concerns have clearly not been addressed (they have in fact been made worse) in the current plan so my previous objections still stand.

    I do not object to the development of this parcel of land, however this current proposal is an excessive over development which is not appropriate or socially sustainable within this area.

    1. I believe that LMCC medium density zoning requirements intended any development to be suited to the area in which it was to be built and would harmonise, or ideally improve, the local surrounds. There are no 3 or 4 storey buildings in the entire area. These zoning requirements could still be met with far fewer residences, and would alleviate many of the associated problems (listed below).

    2. This large development places enormous strain on an already congested traffic and parking situation. The local shops rarely have enough parks for the current residents and Lonus Avenue, the roundabout, Dudley Road and the nearby streets often have accidents or 'near misses'. The addition of 200 cars to this small area is completely unsustainable and dangerous. Lonus Avenue houses a highschool, preschool, day care and childrens' park, which already have limited safe access and parking.

    3. The social issues raised from such an overcrowded development are serious. There is no personal space for residents to entertain or spend their time, meaning they are forced to use the local areas' already limited resources and amenities. The developer has stated that they will be building homes aimed at families. I have two small children and these 'family homes' with no outdoor space and no communal space and will share a wall with neighbours on both sides would be disastrous in a suburban setting. This will only create conflict and boredom, especially with teenage residents.

    4. I believe the LMCC has been taking its environmental responsibilities seriously. However, the complete disregard for environmental concerns within this development proposal are alarming. All dwellings will be fitted with clothes dryers instead of washing lines, all dwellings will need to be constantly air conditioned as there will be no open space to allow breezes and absorbtion of heat, no green space for the encouragement of native fauna and no natural land to aid the seepage of storm water.
    A 3 or 4 bedroom home NEEDS to have personal outdoor space to accommodate that number of inhabitants and to relieve social pressure on the surrounding community.

    The primary concern of the LMCC and the JRPP should be the well being and success of its communities, both present and future. This development should provide quality housing that complements the local area rather than low quality, tightly crammed housing that disconnects from its immediate surrounds and neighbours.

  18. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Tracey Tutton commented

    I wish to object to DA 1774/2013 on Dudley Rd, Whitebridge.

    The density is too high. 91 dwellings is entirely out of character for the area, and indeed for ANY Neighbourhood Centre.The land was deemed suitable for 30-40 dwellings by LMCC when it was rezoned. This number is much more realistic and acceptable, and I believe there would not be community opposition against this number. To suggest more is pure opportunistic over-development.

    Considering the land along Lonus Avenue is not yet fully developed to its inevitable potential under the new zoning, the impact of this potential absolutely must be considered alongside this new development in regard to strains on the local infrastructure. The addition of probably 1000 car movements a day could be reasonably assessed as presenting the community with further congestion and safety issues.

    This development will substantially increase the danger for pedestrians in the Whitebridge area. I regularly walk, with my 1 year old daughter, to the shops and park. This possibility of accessing shops amenities without the need to drive was a strong drawcard for us in choosing to live in this area.

    I am also concerned about the noise pollution which will occur as a result of this increase in traffic AND of the dramatic increase in the number of people who will suddenly be living opposite us, in extremely close proximity. The level of noise as a result of the amount of cars, airconditioners, tvs, music, voices etc that
    will eminate from a development of that type will definitely have an adverse impact on the residents of Whitebridge.

    This development is in stark contrast to the family-friendly atmosphere of Whitebridge, which is another reason we chose this area in which to live. This type of development, which involves so many people living in such a confined area, promotes an unfamiliar and suspicious vibe, where residents can not easily know and become acquainted with other members of their community. It has a strong possibility of becoming an ”us” and ”them” mentality, whereby you live in ”the development” or you live in the ”normal” parts of the suburb. This will not support a cohesive community atmosphere and could breed tension and resentment.

    This development will look extremely out-of-place as Whitebridge is predominately single storey detached houses. To allow a development incorporating 4 storeys is irresponsible and inconsiderate to those who have already chosen to make Whitebridge their home.

    Change and progress is inevitable and necessary, but must be achieved in an appropriate manner.
    A development must be a positive addition to a suburb, NOT a detriment.

    I trust you will acknowledge our concerns and act accordingly.

    Tracey Tutton

  19. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Nathan Tutton commented

    I write to object to the proposed development at Dudley Rd and Kopa St, Whitebridge.

    It is extremely disappointing and unfortunate that the most concerning issues highlighted by the community have not been addressed and that the development is still in this entirely unsatisfactory from.

    Traffic congestion will be a significant problem, especially along Lonus Avenue
    and at the roundabout, and especially during school drop-off and pick-up times, where there are already long delays.

    It seems very unreasonable that the only proposed entry and exit points for a
    development of that size is via Kopa Street, which links to Lonus Avenue, and Lonus
    Avenue is the street used for Whitebridge High School, Whitebridge Preschool in Tumpoa Street AND Birralee Long Day Care Centre. All of these also link to the roundabout.

    I feel very concerned about even walking with my one-year old daughter to the park if this development was to go ahead, and, in the future, walking to the preschool with the need to cross and walk along these roads if that level of traffic will be present. This seems very out-of-character to have this level of traffic attempting to move around a suburb.

    Additionally, it is already becoming very difficult at times, and dangerous, to turn from Station Street, where I live, on to Dudley Road due to the traffic passing though on its way to Redhead and Dudley. This will only worsen if the development attempting to
    accommodate such a high number of people was to go ahead.

    Dropping into the shops on your way home from work will become a thing of the past, as parking problems will inevitably arise as current parking places, of which there are already too few, will be taken over for the development. This will also place more pressure, traffic and congestion onto Dudley Road as people attempt to find parks there instead.

    The Fernleigh Track will also be affected, as it will lose a lot of its beauty and tranquility at this Whitebridge stop and will discourage cyclists, walkers and joggers from making Whitebridge shops and cafes their destination. This will adversley affect businesses in the area. The buildings need to be set way further back so as to not impose upon the experience of the Track.

    Finally, this development will look very unattractive and will not match its surroundings. It has the potential to become the embarrassment of Whitebridge, which will become known for its out-of-place development rather than for its pleasant, community vibe.

    I urge the deciding bodies to use common sense and forward thinking to ensure that
    the developer is made to consider the greater good and not purely profit from this amazing opportunity to develop the suburb of Whitebridge. Current and future residents deserve to be protected and considered to ensure a precedent is set that encourages quality and positive development of our area.

    Nathan Tutton

  20. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Laurie Mascord commented

    Re: DA/1774/2013
    I wish to object to the current development proposal. It is entirely inappropriate for a NEIGHBOURHOOD centre, which is the classification of Whitebridge as assigned by LMCC.
    This DA reflects the guidelines for development in a REGIONAL centre.

    Density and Design/
    With a proposed 91 dwellings, this is a gross and opportunistic over-development of the site. SNL are proposing 54 dwellings per hectare, whereas LMCC Lifestyle 2030 stipulate 30-40 dwellings per hectare.
    The 7(2) conservation land should be excluded from any calculation. This type of development is entirely out of sync with a suburb of majority single-family housing.
    Section 2.7 of the Lake Macquarie City Council Development Control Plan No. 1 “deals with the need for development to respond to the Local Context by identifying desirable elements of its existing character that will contribute to the future character of an area.”
    (page 1) The proposed development does not incorporate any of the ‘desirable elements’ of Whitebridge, nor does it reflect its ‘existing character’.

    Environmental Impact/
    The 7(2) land should also remain independent from pathways enabling permeability through the site. The ecological corridor must be respected as important and irreplaceable for flora and fauna and should in no way be impacted by any development.
    Social Impact/ In their report on Increasing Density in Australia (2012), Giles-Corti, Ryan and Foster explain how environmental criminologists assert that safe neighbourhoods are characterised by greater land-use homogeneity, with less mixed-use development and more single-family housing. The proposed development is in opposition to these characteristics of safe neighbourhoods. Aestethically, the proposed development is imposing, shocking and unbefitting, not only for residents and shoppers, but for recreation-makers on the Fernleigh Track, which is one of the jewels in the crown of
    Newcastle and Lake Macquarie. The visual and atmospherical contrast between Whitebridge and the rest of the experience on the Fernleigh Track would be shameful.
    The request that developer’s contribution s94 be waived is unjustified. The ’urban space’ proposed on Dudley Rd is not something that was requested by, or even desired by,
    the community, due to its strong potential for anti-social behaviour. When one takes in
    to account the developer’s plan to use public land for parts of the project (Dudley Rd for the ’urban space’ and Kopa St for private driveway to Lot 23), this request becomes
    not only ’cheeky’, but blatantly disrespectful. Safety and Traffic Problems/
    A single entry/exit point, that being Kopa Street, for 92 dwellings will clearly cause tremendous changes in traffic conditions not only in Kopa Street, but on Lonus Avenue, and the roundabout via which most drivers access Lonus Avenue. The adjacent park, which is used regularly, the tennis courts and the oval will become much less-pleasant places to frequent. This will break down community ties. The traffic along Lonus Avenue will also put families of the Birralee Long Day Care Centre at risk. Students accessing
    Whitebridge High School by foot along Lonus will be placed in greater danger, and families accessing Whitebridge Preschool in Tumpoa Street will be negatively affected. It
    is already difficult and sometimes dangerous for buses using Lonus Ave to access the high school. Traffic along Dudley Rd will inevitably increase, which will increase the likli
    hood of accidents for people attempting to turn onto this road from side-streets. It is
    already hazardous to do so, as is it hazardous to walk the streets of Whitebridge, particularly when attempting to cross Dudley Rd. Considering the current
    insurge of young families, this is in opposition to the desired character of the area.

    General/
    IF this development is approved, a precedent will be set for land of this zoning to be developed in a similarly careless manner, thus putting more of our suburbs at risk of disaffection. Within Whitebridge, there exists massive potential for dramatic increases in density, due to the zoning of land on Kopa Street and Lonus Avenue. In other words, these problems have the potential to become even bigger. A careful, predictive view is needed to ensure this suburb grows at a manageable rate. The community of Whitebridge and surrounding suburbs have clearly, confidently and justifiably stated
    their lack of support for this project. This must have weight against the self-gratifying intentions of a developer. Residents have communicated an understanding and acceptance of the inevitability of the site being developed; it is the nature of this development which is being rejected. An appropriate development which adds value to the community and which reflects the spirit and regulations of the governing council
    would be embraced.

    Laurie Mascord

  21. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Jill Mascord commented

    It is extremely disappointing to see the plans for the proposed development of Dudley Road/Kopa Street have not addressed the real issues raised by the community.
    DENSITY:
    92 dwellings and 4 storeys in Whitebridge? The developer has obviously taken no care to consider marrying this new development into the existing suburb. This is a grossover-development of the site. The majority of Whitebridge is single-storey, detached single-family homes. This development is not in keeping with the character of Whitebridge.
    TRAFFIC CONGESTION:
    I often use the Whitebridge shops as a convenient place to stop and shop. The addition of 92 dwellings will totally detract from the convenience of using Whitebridge shops, thus negatively impacting on business there.
    SAFETY:
    I feel concerned for safety if this development is approved. Safety will be an issue when using the shops and when crossing busy Dudley Road with my grandchildren. Additionally, I am concerned for my grandchildren’s future safety when they attend Whitebridge High as a result of traffic congestions and due to the possibility of an increase in crime and anti-social behaviour which is often associated with developments of this type.
    SOCIAL IMPACT:
    Whitebridge currently enjoys a relaxed, village atmosphere which is appropriate for an area accommodating a pre-school, long daycare centre, highschool, park, tennis courts and access to the Fenleigh Track. This village atmosphere will be severely compromised if this development is to go ahead in its current form as it is in stark contrast with the character of the suburb.
    ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS:
    ...or lack there of, on the part of the developer. Suggesting the environmental corridor be used to accommodate a thoroughfare between the Fernleigh Track and the shops is not what the community had in mind when they encouraged the developer to allow permeability through the site. It appears the developer would rather spend their time pretending to address issues rather than actually compromising on anything!
    Council has a responsibility to its current and future residents to not be intimidated by the persuasive powers of self-interested developers.

    I trust the deciding bodies will clearly see the lack of compliance with LMCC guidelines for development in a neighbourhood centre.

    Jill Mascord

  22. In Menai NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 13 Trumper Pl Menai 2234:

    Glen Sullivan commented

    This application should not be approved as the rendered and corrugated roof look is out of character for the older look of the street.
    There is not much room for multiple dwellings in this quiet street for extra families and parking. This is made even worse by it being on the corner of a narrow sharp T intersection.
    I moved into this area as it is a low density single dwelling area. My family and i do not want high density housing in this quiet area.

    Thank you.

  23. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Nicole Gintings commented

    To Whom It May Concern,

    As a local resident I would like to express my objection to the proposed development in Whitebridge DA-1772-2013. I do not object to the development of this vacant land, however I believe this is an over-development and does not integrate with the existing surrounds, as per Lake Macquarie City Council's Lifestyle 2030 strategy.

    I have already submitted objections to this previously, however are examining the current application my previous objections are still relevant and have not been addressed

    I object for the following specific reasons;

    * The traffic and parking congestion will be pushed to a dangerous level with the addition of 91 new dwellings all exiting onto Lonus Avenue, with preschools, day cares, high school, sporting fields, childrens' park, etc. along the same 'dead-end' road. There have already been accidents involving children and many close calls and as my children will be walking to and attending Whitebridge highschool this is a major concern for me. The lack of adequate and efficient public transport ensures that most of these dwellings will be adding an additional 2 or 3 cars to the neighbourhood.

    * The aesthetics of this development do not in any way integrate with the surrounding environment. There are no 4 storey dwellings in the area and it will create a concrete eyesore. This design is far more suited to an inner city area rather than a suburban village. The units should be a MAXIMUM of 2 storey and have less dwellings attached along a single wall, to attempt to create some harmony with its village and natural surrounds.

    * There is an obvious lack of green space in this development, aside from the mandatory (minimum) nature corridor along the Fernleigh Track. Again this creates total disharmony with the existing surrounds, raises concerns about storm water runoff, creates a massive power usage using air conditioners to compensate the masses of concrete and clothes dryers as there is no room to hang washing, and once again creates a visual eyesore.

    As an updated objection I was very disheartened to see that the park that had been planned (and was used to 'sweeten' the deal with the community) will now be a private park unavailable to the community. This decision alone speaks volumes about the type of development being planned.

    LMCC and the JRPP have an opportunity to influence what could be a remarkable development promoting the beautiful environment and community that Whitebridge and the local area have to offer. I sincerely hope common sense prevails and the future of this area is paramount to your decision.

    Thank you,
    N. Gintings

  24. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Curli Abell commented

    Dear Development Assessment Officer and JRPP

    RE: Submission regarding Amended Development Application DA/1774/2013 at 142 Dudley Road, WHITEBRIDGE NSW 2290

    I’m not opposed to development on the site, but ask the amended development application is modified so it is consistent with the culture, values and needs of our community, and supports the core values of Lake Macquarie’s Lifestyle 2030 Strategy.

    In particular, we ask the following issues with the proposed amended development application be addressed before the application is approved:

    1. Whitebridge is a two-storey suburb. The proposed four-storey buildings (with underground car park) is unprecedented and too high. Buildings of this height will have adverse impact on the character and culture of our suburb and community. The design elements do not enhance the amenity of the area. There are significant shadowing issues which have not been addressed. The development should have a height limit of two stories. Design elements should be improved. Shadowing issues should be addressed.
    2. The proposed development is too dense. The number of dwellings should be reduced to approximately 60, which is reasonable given the size of the land, character of the suburb and the medium-density zoning.
    3. There is insufficient parking to accommodate the proposed extra commercial space plus visitors to people living in the new dwellings. The development should provide for additional parking to support the additional parking demand it will create.
    4. Local roads are already operating at capacity. The amended development application does not adequately provide for the increase in vehicle and pedestrian traffic that will result because of the additional residents and commercial activities. Failure to adequately address traffic impacts will result in a neighbourhood centre that is unsafe and congested, and will greatly reduce the efficiency and liveability of Whitebridge and surrounding suburbs including Dudley and Redhead. The development application should adequately address traffic impacts to ensure vehicle safety, pedestrian safety, and traffic flow are maintained.
    5. The development should reflect the principles of ecologically sustainable design.

    Thank you for your consideration. I trust these issues will be addressed so the final development design will enhance the Sustainability, Equity, Efficiency and Liveability of Whitebridge, rather than detract from it.

  25. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    William Abell commented

    Dear Development Assessment Officer and JRPP

    RE: Submission regarding Amended Development Application DA/1774/2013 at 142 Dudley Road, WHITEBRIDGE NSW 2290

    I’m not opposed to development on the site, but ask the amended development application is modified so it is consistent with the culture, values and needs of our community, and supports the core values of Lake Macquarie’s Lifestyle 2030 Strategy.

    In particular, we ask the following issues with the proposed amended development application be addressed before the application is approved:

    1. Whitebridge is a two-storey suburb. The proposed four-storey buildings (with underground car park) is unprecedented and too high. Buildings of this height will have adverse impact on the character and culture of our suburb and community. The design elements do not enhance the amenity of the area. There are significant shadowing issues which have not been addressed. The development should have a height limit of two stories. Design elements should be improved. Shadowing issues should be addressed.
    2. The proposed development is too dense. The number of dwellings should be reduced to approximately 60, which is reasonable given the size of the land, character of the suburb and the medium-density zoning.
    3. There is insufficient parking to accommodate the proposed extra commercial space plus visitors to people living in the new dwellings. The development should provide for additional parking to support the additional parking demand it will create.
    4. Local roads are already operating at capacity. The amended development application does not adequately provide for the increase in vehicle and pedestrian traffic that will result because of the additional residents and commercial activities. Failure to adequately address traffic impacts will result in a neighbourhood centre that is unsafe and congested, and will greatly reduce the efficiency and liveability of Whitebridge and surrounding suburbs including Dudley and Redhead. The development application should adequately address traffic impacts to ensure vehicle safety, pedestrian safety, and traffic flow are maintained.
    5. The development should reflect the principles of ecologically sustainable design.

    Thank you for your consideration. I trust these issues will be addressed so the final development design will enhance the Sustainability, Equity, Efficiency and Liveability of Whitebridge, rather than detract from it.

  26. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Anne-Marie Abell commented

    Dear Development Assessment Officer and JRPP

    RE: Submission regarding Amended Development Application DA/1774/2013 at 142 Dudley Road, WHITEBRIDGE NSW 2290

    I’m not opposed to development on the site, but ask the amended development application is modified so it is consistent with the culture, values and needs of our community, and supports the core values of Lake Macquarie’s Lifestyle 2030 Strategy.

    In particular, we ask the following issues with the proposed amended development application be addressed before the application is approved:

    1. Whitebridge is a two-storey suburb. The proposed four-storey buildings (with underground car park) is unprecedented and too high. Buildings of this height will have adverse impact on the character and culture of our suburb and community. The design elements do not enhance the amenity of the area. There are significant shadowing issues which have not been addressed. The development should have a height limit of two stories. Design elements should be improved. Shadowing issues should be addressed.
    2. The proposed development is too dense. The number of dwellings should be reduced to approximately 60, which is reasonable given the size of the land, character of the suburb and the medium-density zoning.
    3. There is insufficient parking to accommodate the proposed extra commercial space plus visitors to people living in the new dwellings. The development should provide for additional parking to support the additional parking demand it will create.
    4. Local roads are already operating at capacity. The amended development application does not adequately provide for the increase in vehicle and pedestrian traffic that will result because of the additional residents and commercial activities. Failure to adequately address traffic impacts will result in a neighbourhood centre that is unsafe and congested, and will greatly reduce the efficiency and liveability of Whitebridge and surrounding suburbs including Dudley and Redhead. The development application should adequately address traffic impacts to ensure vehicle safety, pedestrian safety, and traffic flow are maintained.
    5. The development should reflect the principles of ecologically sustainable design.

    Thank you for your consideration. I trust these issues will be addressed so the final development design will enhance the Sustainability, Equity, Efficiency and Liveability of Whitebridge, rather than detract from it.

  27. In Erskineville NSW on “Premises known as Pizza...” at 65 Erskineville Road Erskineville NSW 2043:

    Alex Ozdowski commented

    Hello,

    I live in the apartment block in the Square. I am 99% behind this request. I believe it adds a great atmosphere to the Square, and enjoy myself staying there for a pizza. The 1% that does not agree with me is the occasional noise that comes through although I would say that as long as they are held to the 10pm closing time and no music is played then this is not an issue. As I said I am 99% behind so that 1% is not a huge consideration.

    Regards,

    Alex

  28. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    John Mcdougall commented

    21/120 Redhead Rd
    Redhead, NSW, 2290
    06/04/2015

    Lake Macquarie City Council
    The General Manager
    PO Box 1906
    Hunter Region Mail Centre,2310

    John Mcdougall

    I am a resident of Dudley and I strongly oppose the proposed development at 142-146 Dudley Road & 2-4 Kopa Street, Whitebridge,2290.
    DA No. 1774/2013.

    As the DA in question has increased in density and height my previous submissions and concerns still stand. Included below are my added concerns.

    Along Dudley Rd the mixed-use structure will be immediately noticable as it looms out of context with the existing business units. The top parapet on the bottle shop is approx. 6m and the proposed height of the mixed use building is almost 14m. How can this be an advantage to the community. SNL's remark of their proposal ’being consistent with the emerging character of Whitebridge is ludicrous spin.

    The length of time this construcion will take will impact on the adjoining and surrounding residences for possibly years. This again is totally unacceptable in a Neighbourhood Centre.

    The density which is being proposed is inconsistent with the planning involved when LMCC rezoned the land.

    Endangered species such as the sugar glider will be under further pressure due to SNL using the environmental zone for a shared pathway, storm water management basins and swales and also part of the internal roadway. This is in direct contradiction of LEP 2014. As this zone is in an APZ there will be fewer tree plantings further compounding the rehabilitation of the area.

    As there is only one egress along Kopa St. I fail to understand how both the council and SNL whitewash the fact that this increase in traffic is not an issue. Both these parties have stated that there are existing pressures on parking and at the roundabout and with no suggestion or expectations of any road upgrades this will lead to further gridlock and inflamed behaviour.

    I urge the council to please use common sense in their approach to this developement, it’s our lives and our future at hand.

    Thank you.

  29. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Anika and Rob Roohan commented

    To the General Manager,

    Please accept this letter as a submission regarding the proposed development (DA 1774/2013) on Dudley Road Whitebridge.

    We hope you take into consideration our concerns around this development. As local residents who have moved to the area in 2012, we are proud of the strong sense of community the area has, in addition to its unique environmental characteristics. The community cares about the suburb and will work hard to maintain its identity as a caring, social and environmentally aware area.

    In addition to these vital positive points which are threatened by the aforementioned development, we wish to draw attention to potentially significant systematic oversight we feel has not been addressed to date.

    In reviewing the Development Application, it appears that the property “owner” remains the NSW State Government (Roads and Maritime Services) and not the developer “applicant” SNL Building Constructions Pty Ltd. It can therefore be derived from this that the sale of the land may in fact be subject to the approval of the Development Application.

    A potential conflict of interest arises in the approval process, with the approval (and therefore sale) being contingent upon the Joint Regional Planning Panel, a subsidiary of the NSW State Government. We are concerned that the beneficiary of the sale (NSW State Government) cannot remain an independent party in such a process.

    As it can be reasonably determined from the Development Application that the NSW State Government remains the owner of the site, based on the amount of community concern and opposition regarding the environmental impact of the development, the sale should not proceed for the following reasons:

    NSW State Governments Financial Position 2012-2015

    It is important to consider the change in economic circumstances between the NSW State Government’s financial position from 2012 when the “sale” of the site was initiated, and now, in 2015.

    In 2012 the NSW State Government had just been through the Global Financial Crisis and was one of, if not the worst, performing States in the country financially.

    This has since turned around significantly with the State now the nation’s top performing economy with multiple avenues of available funds which could easily cover the sale of the land; the leasing of Newcastle Port is one such example.

    The following is taken from the NSW Liberal Party website;

    “NSW was ranked last of all Australian States and Territories in 2010 on key economic indicators, under NSW Liberals & Nationals, NSW is Number One Again”

    We appreciate that the department owner, the Roads and Maritime Service have budgets to adhere to, and revenue from the sale of the site would be directed to other projects, however with the fiscal difference between when the sale was initiated to now, the community objection would outweigh the benefits. There would appear to be no need to gain revenue from the sale of assets when multiple government departments are now displaying ability to generate increased revenue via improved performance.

    Environmental Significance

    Of most importance is the environmental significance of the site. The corridor linking Glenrock State Conservation area and Awabakal Nature Reserve is part of an area currently being researched by various groups, including Newcastle University.

    Studies have already indicated the eradication of species within the area due to urban encroachment that leads to inbreeding and ultimately extinction. The site in question is the central point within the corridor that flows between these two extremely environmentally fragile areas.

    Development of 142 Dudley Road would see irreversible damage caused to Glenrock State Conservation area and Awabakal State Recreation Area both of which feed into the greater Lake Macquarie Wetlands Park.

    Development should not proceed until the outcome of the ongoing studies is known. Alternatively NSW State Government owned land which forms part of the corridor, should be transferred to the appropriate department who are capable of managing the environmental aspects of the land adequately. Replanting of new native trees is of negligible impact in ensuring this area is supported.

    Community Concern

    The response of the community against the development has been phenomenal, raising concerns around traffic/congestion, privacy, amenity, and safety. Multiple submissions have been tabled by residents and community groups.

    On all occasions the development application amendments have demonstrated arrogance in opposition to community concern, and failed to address any of the key issues.

    Given the above information, and the possibility that the owner of the site remains the NSW State Government AND the body responsible for ultimately approving the development is the NSW State Government AND the beneficiary of DA 1774/2013 is the NSW State Government, we see no way that the sale of the site and the Development Application can proceed in its current form.

  30. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 62 Constitution Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    ST commented

    I urge Council to not even contemplate such a proposterous development.

    9 storeys on such a site - really???

    It is not in keeping in character or context with Dulwich Hill.

    It is extremely naïve to think that most of the residents or commercial tenants will not have cars as the development is located near the light rail.

    We already have a rat run from New Canterbury Rd down Dulwich St and/or Beach Rd to Constitution Rd and Denison Rd with ever increasing volumes of cars which is worse. There is already a very large approved development next door at the Grove/Constitution Rd site (DA201300375) with I believe 246 dwellings, 4 buildings of heights from 3 to 8 storeys and parking for 269 vehicles.

    Transport and infrastructure services are already under strain and with more and more developers submitting DA's; 429-449 New Canterbury Rd, 801 New Canterbury Road, not to mention the ones that have already been approved (the Cooperage, the flour mills development at MacGill St/Old Canterbury Rd) and the others on New Canterbury Rd under Canterbury Council (the Grumpys site, 574 New Canterbury Rd)

    Council seem to be intent on ruining the fabric of our local area, the very residents that they are supposed to be representing. Extremely disappointed.......Finally, I find it hard to believe that they actually live in the area. Bring on Council elections in 2016.

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts