Recent comments

  1. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 10 Arthur Street Marrickville NSW 2204:

    M. Matheson commented

    "6 part 7 storey"

    What does that mean? Seven stories in six parts?

    What is a "part"? Where is the picture?

  2. In Cooranbong NSW on “Utility Installation” at 617 Freemans Drive, Cooranbong NSW 2265:

    Bronwyn Reid commented

    I live adjacent to the proposed sewerage facility. I have lived in Cooranbong for over 30 years and in my current residence for nearly 20 years. I do not want to be smelling foul sewerage odours and hearing noise from this facility impacting on my semi- rural environment. There is a Community Pre-school and a popular Community Centre across the road and a housing estate that will all be adversely impacted by this proposed sewerage works. Thus is not an appropriate location for a sewerage treatment plant.

  3. In Fitzroy North VIC on “Construction of five triple...” at 40 Nicholson Street, Fitzroy North VIC 3068:

    Lou Baxter commented

    I strongly object to the proposed size of the development and even more so to ANY reduction in parking requirements as there are already so many parking problems in the local area.
    Indeed so numerous have such over-sized developments become that I consider it is time the impacts of so many high-rise constructions, with their resultant major increases in population density in a small area, was examined on more than a one-by-one basis. The entire system of building approvals, with their bias towards big developers, needs to be re-considered.

  4. In Cooranbong NSW on “Utility Installation” at 617 Freemans Drive, Cooranbong NSW 2265:

    G Bruce commented

    There is only one proposal for a high quality long-term solution for Watagan Park sewerage treatment that meets the needs of the community without any detriment or potential detriment (smell, noise, leakage, pollution, financial, and community sentiment).

    Please connect the effluent to the existing sewerage system which has none of the problems associated with the developer's current proposal, and has higher effluent processing standards than the one proposed by the developer. Professor Timms, water scientist, demonstrated this well in his presentation to the public forum.

    There is no need to have SDA church owners and their developers going for a second-rate system which also upsets the community on a number of levels.

    The only viable reason that has been given to the public is regarding the developers wanting to save money. This was admitted by the developer's representative at the community meeting earlier this year.

    This town is for the community not the developers, who are on public record as having been one of the largest donors to NSW political parties. Their money would better be spent on doing the right thing in providing for the communities they work in rather than for political favours. The owners, SDA Church and Avondale College, and the developer are both on record that this development is a strategy for making highly significant amounts of money for both in the short and especially long term. Thus there is no need to cut corners at the expense of the community and environmental /ecosystem wellbeing in order to assist the owners and developers in making even bigger profits.

    All participants in the Cooranbong community need to be responsible citizens, good neighbours and making choices for the best in short and long term wellbeing for every member of the community: humans, nature, church, college and business.

    Cooranbong for everyone, not a privileged corporate few.

    Thank you for considering the needs of the community foremost.

  5. In Cooranbong NSW on “Utility Installation” at 617 Freemans Drive, Cooranbong NSW 2265:

    Andrew Ormiston commented

    What I havnt been able to work out is why they would plan for a sewage treatment plant, which I understand will have a sight, smell and sound impact on neighbouring homes, built on the main road running through cooranbong? I understand that the new housing development needs supporting infrastructure, but wouldnt having a sewage pool in the middle of cooranbong lower everyones property value, and make it, not just an undesirable place to live, but also drive through. Ive lived in Cooranbong my whole life, it is a wonderful place to live and raise a family, i hope that how this small town develops in future will protect the existing residents quality of living.

  6. In Cooranbong NSW on “Utility Installation” at 617 Freemans Drive, Cooranbong NSW 2265:

    Jacomina Harrison commented

    As a local member of the community I am extremely concerned regarding the current proposal for a sewerage water recycling plant to be built in what appear to be close to the center of Cooranbong.

    Q1: how was the housing development approved without utilities such as sewerage water recycling plant location or connection to existing structure approved?

    Q2: I have never seen or known of any other town that has a sewerage water recycling plant in or close to the center. Can you provide an example of how this is appropriate?

    Q3: how is it appropriate to have a (planned) supermarket, pre-school, and private residents in close vicinity to sewerage (raw and treated)?

    The future development of Cooranbong and property values will be negatively impacted by such decisions as to plonk a sewerage utility plant in the center (at 617 Freemans drive) of Cooranbong town.

    From a resident's view would it not be better to insist and have agreed to prior to the start of a project that they connect with existing systems where feasible or have a designates location on the project site and not in other peoples front yards.

  7. In Cooranbong NSW on “Utility Installation” at 617 Freemans Drive, Cooranbong NSW 2265:

    Karen Noble commented

    Having lived in Cooranbong for a number of years and still regularly visiting a number of relatives and friends there, I am appalled to be told that there is an application for a sewage water recycling facility to be installed in the centre of Cooranbong.

    The application shows that this facility will cover a very large area and be in the vicinity of many established homes. Cooranbong is an historical village, and though I am not against progress in general, this is not what Cooranbong needs. It has become a tourist village including shops and a museum to cater for visitors. We need to keep the picturesque village environment.

    I strongly object to the possible rezoning of this land (617 Freemans Drive) and to the installation of this type of facility.

  8. In Sydney NSW on “Use of the Existing...” at Inaburra School 75-79 Billa Rd Bangor 2234:

    Linda Valastro commented

    I write as an active member of the 2234 community.
    The submissions in support of this application are reflective of a group of like-minded people. The goals/benefits outlined in each are remarkably similar in content and I could easily list them all again here in my submission.
    Menai Baptist Church has been meeting on this site for 30 years. During this time it's members have contributed - as all residents do - to their neighbourhoods, local clubs, schools & businesses and economy. We are group comprised of accountants, health professionals, teachers, counsellors, small business owners, IT professionals, office workers, retirees, grandparents, mothers, fathers & children from our local businesses, schools, preschools and playgroups and sporting clubs. We live locally and, in many cases, work locally.
    If this submission is successful the outcome will be: a locally-minded, pre-existing group will be able to use a more appropriate space on the same property that they have met on for 30 years.
    I write in support of this application & ask that the council give due consideration to it.

  9. In Sydney NSW on “Use of the Existing...” at Inaburra School 75-79 Billa Rd Bangor 2234:

    Janelle Thomas commented

    I support this application
    As a resident of Menai and having had 2 daughters attend Inaburra school, I see this move as a positive one for the Menai community.
    This will mean that the meeting place for Menai Baptist Church will be easier to recognize for visitors to the area and this would be a positive affect of relocating services that are already taking place within the Inaburra complex.
    New visitors to the shire, and current attendees of Menai Baptist Church, would find it easier to access this meeting place and it would be a further positive link between the Inaburra School and Menai Baptist Church.
    I trust that Council view this application positively.

  10. In Cooranbong NSW on “Utility Installation” at 617 Freemans Drive, Cooranbong NSW 2265:

    Peter and Barbara Dixon commented

    Earlier in the year we strongly objected to the building of a Sewage Water Recycling Facility in 60 Avondale Rd, which was close to the back of our home. This application was withdrawn, it was said, because of community concerns.

    Now we discover that another application has been made for the same facility, only this time in our street and not that very far distant from our home, and once again in the midst of existing homes.

    We do not think that the near centre of a village is at all a suitable place for such a huge facility which will take up a large area. We cannot understand why the developer would do this after expressing their concern for the interests of the community.

    We would like to object to the rezoning of this land at 617 Freemans Drive and to the installation there of a WRF.

  11. In Cooranbong NSW on “Utility Installation” at 617 Freemans Drive, Cooranbong NSW 2265:

    Milton McFarlane commented

    I have been a resident of Cooranbong for many years. At present I live in the Avondale Retirement Village. I would like to object to the installation of a recycling sewage water facility in the centre of this village.

    Apart from being a most inappropriate place in the vicinity of houses, a pre-school, community centre and Asian Aid centre I am concerned at the extra traffic this is going to bring to Freemans Drive and in particular at the intersection in front of the shops.

    We are having more and more units crowded into the retirement village and I notice another JPG subdivision being opened up in Alton Road. All these developments mean extra traffic. I have seen a number of near accidents at the intersection. The building of this facility would mean more trucks and heavy vehicles for at least a year.

    Traffic lights have been promised for some time but nothing has eventuated.

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

    Luke Searles commented

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    Below is the exact objection I made to the proposed development back in January. I was going rewrite this objection to make it relevant to the 're-design' SNL has re-submitted, but then I realised I still have the exact same objections since 're-design' has addressed none of the issues previously raised. In fact it has made them worse.

    To SNL, I understand as developers you need to make money off a property, but don't make the community suffer because you over paid for the site.

    Previous objection;

    I am writing concerning DA 1772-2013 proposed for Lonus Ave, Whitebridge and to express my concern and objection to this development. I live in Charlestown, however am regularly in Whitebridge for work and to visit family.

    I do not object to the development of this land, however this development is excessive and will be a detriment to Whitebridge and the surrounding areas.

    1. There are too many units planned for this space. This number of units in a small suburb will create a myriad of problems including higher crime rates, traffic congestion, pressure on amenities, pedestrian safety issues, to list just a few. It will look synonymous to a ghetto. Whitebridge is a small, quiet suburb which boasts a friendly community atmosphere and a thriving environmental landscape, both would be jeopardised by this development.
    The appropriate density zoning could still be achieved with far fewer units.

    2. This development will create traffic and parking problems resulting from 88 two-three bedroom units and several commercial properties. Whitebridge does not have the road systems, parking or infrastructure to cope with this many new cars to Dudley Road, Lonus Avenue, local shops and nearby streets.

    3. The development is poorly designed which is evidenced in the boxy, ‘dorm room’ style dwellings, the obvious inference is that this development has been planned to maximise profits through high density and low quality.

    I am hopeful that Lake Macquarie Council and the JRPP make a stand against this development and demand one that suits the local area and is not detrimental to it.

    Thank you,
    Luke Searles

  13. In Leppington NSW on “Retirement Village concept” at Denham Court Road and Camden Valley Way, Denham Court:

    Dr Susan Lauric commented

    Would you please supply more information regarding the proposed retirement village-
    - reference 2014SYW132 DA)- and make this information available publicly. It really is time for all the secrecy around development in this area to cease.
    Susan Lauric

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

    Becky Beveridge commented

    To Whom It May Concern,

    I am a resident of Hudson Street, Whitebridge and write to state my objection to this proposed development. I reiterate my concerns in relation to the previous DA (stated in my previous objection) as I feel they have not been addressed.

    I have major concerns in regard to this development. Let me preface this by saying I am not opposed to developments and when done correctly, and in accordance with the local area, they can benefit the whole community. I believe this development will be a detriment to Whitebridge and its residents. My major concerns are;

    1. The high density. I understand this area is zoned 'medium density', however the number and density of residences is well above what a reasonable person would consider appropriate for this area, or any area outside a city or a larger town. 91 lots is an extreme number for a small suburban area and I am well aware that this number could be dramatically reduced and still adhere to the medium density zoning. The height and closeness of the 'townhouses' is befitting of a town MUCH larger than Whitebridge. The fact that this DA has been redesigned to increase the density speaks volumes to the lack of consideration given to locals' concerns.

    Whitebridge is known for its bush surrounds, an environmentally friendly area that hosts a number of beautiful and well regarded areas that Lake Macquarie Council should be proud of and seek to preserve the integrity of, such as the Fernleigh track, Glenrock reserve, Dudley beach, etc. Residents from all over Lake Macquarie and Newcastle visit this area as it is a naturally beautiful, highly regarded environment that caters for such a wide range of the population. This development will detract from these community assets.

    2. Social Impact. The concentration of so many dwellings into such a small space brings with it a range of social problems. There is inadequate space for residents to spend their time within their own dwellings and Whitebridge does not have the infrastructure or activity that a larger town or city has to cater for this number of people. There will inevitably be an increase in 'bored youths' within the neighbourhood.

    3. Traffic and pedestrian dangers. Kopa Street and Dudley Road are already extremely congested and dangerous. Pedestrian safety has been a major issue in an increasingly busy area. Kopa Street, which will be the only entrance and exit point for this development already houses a highschool, daycare centre, preschool, tennis courts, sports oval and children's park. This development will add more than 200 cars in this single street alone. This is a street that currently has periods where traffic is at a standstill trying to accommodate these amenities. Another 200 - 300 cars will make this area a nightmare to live and a very dangerous street to be a pedestrian in. Will council be spending the money to upgrade the roads, add new lanes of traffic, a set of traffic lights at the roundabout, adequate public transport and more (much needed) parking at the shops? Major works will need to be done to this area if a development of this size is to be approved.

    4. Amenities. Whitebridge is a beautiful suburb to live and a wonderful suburb to visit, however Whitebridge has limited amenities which will not cope with an influx caused by a development of this size. The local daycare centre, as an example, has a three year waiting period for any positions (I know as we have been on it for 2 years). The local shops rarely have free parking in busy times, the bus stop is dangerous, and the parking at the shops fails to accommodate even the current residents. There is no way this area will cope with a development of this size unless council are prepared to invest a large amount of resources into infrastructure and amenities. Will council be upgrading these local areas?

    After emailing concerns to the developer, I received a written reply which said 'all these concerns are council responsibility and are not our problem'.

    This comment alone (not to mention the lack of consideration these objections were given in the DA redesign) speaks volumes about this development, how it is being planned with no regard for the local area and I hope that council makes a stand on behalf of its residents and its local environment and insists that the density is reduced and the road and safety issues are addressed to actually benefit and promote our beautiful and much loved area.

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

    Renae Conroy commented

    I strongly object to the development onDudley Rd Whitebridge DA 1774/2013.

    The new design has not resolved the issues that are of most concern.

    Traffic and safety remain paramount in the minds of residents, students and their families.

    Discordance with of the style of this development with its current surroundings will divide a community which currently enjoys a harmonious existence.

    4-storeys along Dudley Rd will provide an eyesore for motorists passing g through on their way to Redhead and Dudley beaches, as well as detract from the lovely atmosphere of the shopping district.

    The environmentL corridor is I risk of being used as a public pathway, which is not what the community intended to happen when they asked for permeability through the site.

    Users of the Fernleigh Track may be disappointed with their experience once reaching this middle-point due to the buildings being so close to the track.

    Storm water provisions appear inadequate and could also impact the Fernleigh Track.

    There exists more land inWhitebridge which will be used in a higher-density fashion in the future, given the new zoning. This should be taken into account.

    This is a great opportunity to shadow how urban consolidation can be achieved in the right way. Make a good example ofWhitebridge. Don't allow Whitebridge to become an example of a lesson to be learnt.

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

    Amanda Brown commented

    I write again to express concerns regarding the amended development plans for DA 1774/2013.

    My prior issues with the proposal remain and have been exacerbated by the redesign of the plans, particularly the issue many residents have raised regarding the resulting density and associated outcomes such as traffic congestion, safety, social impact and the damage to our local environment.

    I maintain as have many other residents that the proposed development is not in keeping the the existing community. In particular, the revised plan now includes a 5 storey building which is highly inappropriate considering Whitebridge is a suburban area. In addition, I believe that this is does not comply with council regulations.

    Prior to moving to Whitebridge with my husband, I lived in terrace housing (similar to that proposed by SNL for this site) in Cooks Hill. Many of the concerns raised by residents in terms of parking, narrow streets, and high density living including crime, were issues I experienced on a daily basis. Like many others, we moved from the city to avoid this type of housing and the associated issues. Whitebridge is a suburb which does not require rows of terraces on the scale proposed in this development application. As previously stated, it is not in keeping with the existing suburb but rather creates a new one, a "ghetto" comes to mind.

    It is insulting to consider that despite objections to the number of dwellings proposed, not only by the community but by our elected councillors, the developer has now is creased this number in the new design, and has not adequately addressed such concerns. In some cases, the developer has not even bothered to try.

  17. In Hallett Cove SA on “Carport forward of the...” at 180 The Cove Rd Hallett Cove:

    Lisa Schuyler commented

    Yes this should be permitted so that others are able to build the same. Rules should not be different for any other resident.

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

    Katherine Cox commented

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

    It is disappointing to see the developer has not taken on community concerns when redesigning the proposed development.

    The addition of another storey, bringing the height along Dudley Rd to 16 metres, 4-storeys, is entirely in opposition to the village atmosphere of Whitebridge. It will lessen the experience of shopping and frequenting the cafés on the shopping strip.

    Increasing the number of units from 87 to 91 indicates that the developer is not interested in taking on board community and council concerns. This number 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.

    To then request waiver of the compulsory developers contribution appears somewhat disrespectful on the part of the developer, especially considering their requests use public land for 'Whitebridge Square' and private driveway on Kopa St, as well as the environmental corridor to achieve permeability of the site, which is not generous, but rather required by Safety by Design principles.

    I am also extremely concerned about the increase in traffic, especially the intersection of Kopa Street and Lonus Avenue. The western side of Kopa Street is currently a fairly quiet area and often has children and families congregating for cricket and tennis. I do not see that this would be a suitable thoroughfare for the additional vehicles (of the 91 residences) onto Warren Road.

    This development must be suitable for the area and enhance the suburb.

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

    Gwenda Smith commented

    I wish to maintain my objection to the amended DA 1774/2013 on land at Dudley Rd and Kopa St, Whitebridge. I do not oppose development on this site, but do oppose the intense overdevelopment proposed by SNL. The increase in number of dwellings from 87 to 91 and the increase in height of the buildings is totally unacceptable and incompatible with the local area and the suburb generally.
    When the land was rezoned the planning documents proposed a reasonable density for the East Charlestown bypass corridor. Local residents would have been happy to accept a proposal with about 40 dwellings on the site to a maximum of two storeys. The DA now lodged does not comply with LMCC height limits and a building of 4 storeys fronting Dudley Rd would be totally overwhelming and a visual eyesore both close up and from a distance. The site is on relatively high land and is visible from many places around the area. It is especially visible to all people in the local shopping centre and those travelling along Dudley Rd. The proposal should comply with al LMCC guidelines which have been written the protect the scenic values of our environment.
    The new plan for the site still includes many multistorey buildings which take up nearly all of the site. The roads are very narrow, there is underground parking to increase the number of units, and there is very little private space for any future residents. The conditions would be crowded with people living in close proximity to many neighbours. This type of crowded living conditions can lead to social disharmony and dissatisfaction. If there were children and pets in the buildings, it would only be worse in this regard.
    Many of the buildings are still long and repetitive in design. The built area is a high proportion of the site, so there is little permeability for water. Stormwater management will be a major problem and the proposal to use the Conservation Zone for ditches and basins to manage runoff from the roads is totally unacceptable. This green corridor should be used to enhance and protect the flora and fauna suitable for the zone, and not for any other purposes to suit the developer whose main aim seems to be maximum yields and profits.
    The suggestion of removing all the trees on the site and in the reserve at the end of Kopa St is appalling and unacceptable from an environmental and visual point of view. The developer needs to comply with the guidelines of Council in regard to tree preservation. In addition, any new trees and plants proposed need to be more suitable than the various exotic species suggested in the Landscape plan.
    The wide pathway through the Conservation Zone should be moved out of this area and could be more appropriately built within the built zone. This would still give people access through the site and could assist in terms of comprising part of the asset protection zone to separate the natural bushland which does exist and the dwellings to be constructed.
    The bulk and scale of the proposed buildings is intense for this site, and it would be surprising if the proposal was acceptable to the Mines Subsidence Board. This is especially true given that the first DA was not acceptable.
    In conclusion, if a proposal reducing the number of apartments and townhouses, and lowering the height of the buildings, was forthcoming, there could be a well designed and acceptable development on this site. It could still provide additional housing near to the neighbourhood centre, the schools and the sporting facilities in the local area. It could respect the local natural environment as well as the heritage Fernleigh Track immediately adjacent. It could be built entirely on the land owned by the developer, and not on any adjacent public land or on the Conservation Zone. It would reduce the impact of the increase in traffic on the local streets and give more importance to the safety and lifestyle of the community. It would have less of an impact on the immediate neighbours both during the construction phase and afterwards.
    Parking in the shopping centre is already a difficult issue for both the customers and the shopkeepers and business people. An overdevelopment of the site would make this problem much worse, affecting the safely of motorists and pedestrians.
    I hope that the owners of the land and the developer will now listen to the concerns of the community and realise that changes need to be made to their plans and in their attitudes to those of us who live in Whitebridge and enjoy the low density character of the suburb. A good development is possible for the site and that is what is needed and desired.

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

    Kylie Pheils commented

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

    It is disappointing to see the developer has not taken on community concerns when redesigning the proposed development.

    The addition of another storey, bringing the height along Dudley Rd to 16 metres, 4-storeys, is entirely in opposition to the village atmosphere ofWhitebridge. It will lessen the experience of shopping and frequenting the cafés on the shopping strip.

    Increasing the number of units from 87 to 91 indicates that the developer is not interested in taking on board community and council concerns. This number is entirely too high and indicates an opportunistic attitude on behalf of the developer. LMCCindicated 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 figureas being appropriate.

    To then request waivure of the compulsory developers contribution appears somewhat disrespectful on the part of the developer, especially considering their requests use public land for 'Whitebridge Square'and private driveway on Kopa St, as well as the environmental corridor to achieve permeability of the site, which is not generous, but rather required by Safety by Design principles.

    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.

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

    James Pheils commented

    I object to the revised plans for the development on Dudley Rd.

    The same issues I have raised previously are still pertinent, if not exacerbated, by the new plans.

    The density is too high, the traffic implications very concerning and the 14metre height along Dudley Rd entirely inappropriate. Safety of residents, students and shoppers must be an important consideration. As should the precedent that would be set by allowing this type of development to occur. Urban consolidation is inevitable and necessary but this is not urban consolidation - this is ill-thought out, poor planning which has potentially devastating consequences for the community.

    I urge the deciding body to enforce LMCC planning guidelines to ensure our suburbs are developed with integrity for the good of all.

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

    Nathan Tutton commented

    I write to object to the new plans for the proposed development at Dudley Rd and Kopa St, Whitebridge. The new plans do not address the important issues and in fact exacerbate them.

    The developer has increased the number of units from 87 to 91 and added another storey to make a height of 4 storeys, 14 metres. It is extremely disappointing and unfortunate that they have not taken on board the most concerning issues highlighted to them by the community and council.

    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.

  23. 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.

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

    Margaret Mcdougall commented

    21/120 Redhead St, Redhead
    Redhead, 2290

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

    Margaret 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.

    Safety of the Fernleigh Track will be compromised:

    As a user of the Fernleigh Track, I am concerned about the impacts this development will have on its use. Safety will be compromised by residents of the development using the track as their own private outdoor space, due to the appalling lack of green space within the development itself. The track is a cycle/walk way and it is not intended for static activity.

    Traffic safety of schoolchildren and other pedestrians:

    This development will lead to an intensive and unsafe increase in traffic on roads that are already functioning over-capacity. The area is a thoroughfare for people accessing local beaches and it is also home to a high school, preschool and long daycare centre. It is unsafe and irresponsible to compromise the safety of people by squeezing 91 dwellings into the centre of the suburb where they will be required to use the already busy roads that service schools in the area.

    Inappropriate size and design for the area:

    This is a gross over-development of the site with total disregard for the current streetscape and street character of the area. No attempt has been made to integrate the development with the current surroundings.

    Setting a precedent for other inappropriate developments:

    If this development goes ahead in its current form, there is a very high chance that similar developments will spring up along the land once reserved for the East Charlestown Bypass. This will inevitably and irreversibly change the entire character of these coastal suburbs in a negative manner.

    The development of this land must be more carefully and responsibly considered and should contribute positively to the suburb.

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

    Keith Kolisnyk commented

    11 Goulburn Street
    Dudley, 2290

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

    Keith Kolisnyk

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

    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. Additionally, I am concerned for local children’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.

    I often use the Whitebridge shops as a convenient place to stop and shop. It has increasingly become harder to find parking since the erection of the fence around the proposed development site. The addition of 91 dwellings will totally detract from the convenience of using Whitebridge shops, thus negatively impacting on business there.

    This is a gross over-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.

    Whitebridge currently enjoys a relaxed, village atmosphere which is apprpriate 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.

    As a resident of Dudley, I am extremely concerned about the even wider implications this development will have on the land once ear-marked for the ’East Charlestown Bypass’. If this type of development is approved for Whitebridge, we may be faced with the same unsavoury concept in Dudley, as will the residents of suburbs along that entire environmental corridor.

    Council has a responsibility to its current and future residents to ensure appropriate, quality developments in its suburbs.

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

    John Mcdougall commented

    19 Railway Street
    Dudley, 2290

    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.

    I’m concerned that the TRAFFIC IMPACT of the development has not been carefully considered. It is already becoming extremely difficult to get a park to use the Whitebridge shops, and the congestion at school times is already a problem.

    As a parent of 2 children who have attended Whitebridge High, I am extremely concerned about the SAFETY of the area if this development is to be approved in its current form. I would feel extremely uncomfortable about the level of traffic AND the SOCIAL PROBLEMS such as an increase in CRIME and ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR which are usually associated with this type of development, and especially when a high school and development of this type co-exist in a suburb.

    I am also concerned about the ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT of this development. There is no provision for sustainable and efficient energy use and it aestethically impedes negatively on the Fernleigh Track. It DOES NOT FIT WITH ITS SURROUNDINGS. It will look UNSIGHTLY and OUT-OF-PLACE in Whitebridge.

    I am extremely concerned that if this development is approved without significant modifications, it will SET A PRECEDENT for other land along the environmental corridor from Adamstown to Belmont to be developed in the same careless manner.

    Council must ensure that this land is developed in a RESPONSIBLE and PROGRESSIVE manner so that the community of Whitebridge and all surrounding suburbs may benefit from, rather than bear the consequences of, the development of this land.

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

    Greg Boundy commented

    21 Railway Street
    Dudley, 2290

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

    Greg Boundy

    I am a resident of Dudley and have many concerns about the development proposed for 142-146 Dudley Road & 2-4 Kopa Street, Whitebridge,2290.DA No. 1774/2013

    TRAFFIC CONGESTION from the development of 91 units in the village centre and increased Building height (4 storyes with 1 underground) along Dudley Rd is a huge concern, especially when considering the suburb is a gateway to Dudley and Redhead. Parking along Dudley Road is already dangerous with gridlock occuring regularly , Whitebridge roundabout suffers as well.

    SAFETY, as a result of this traffic, is also a huge concern, especially when considering the number of pedestrians attempting to use the pathways and pedestrian crossings when accessing the shops, park, tennis courts, high school, daycare centre and preschool.

    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT from use of the Ecological Corridor for landscaping, storm water management and facilities including a pathway with an adjoining swale. This zone will be severely compromised in its use for flora and fauna conservation.

    SOCIAL IMPACT of underage drinking, theft and assults due to overcrowding in estate. Density issues are the problem here. Size of the estate is inconsistent withe the surrounding area and doesn’t maintain the residential amenity.The site should have no more than 40 dwellings as stated in LEP 2004 Draft Amendment 53.

    Of great concern to me also is the PRECEDENT that will be set for this type of development to be planned for other parcels of vacant land along the Fernleigh Track, including land in Redhead. Whilst development is desirable and inevitable, it must be appropriate and sustainable development that contributes to, not detracts from, our neighbourhoods.

    Council must consider not only the residents of Whitebridge, but also the residents of the greater area who will be negatively affected if the development goes ahead in its proposed form.

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

    Carmen Kolisnyk commented

    26th September, 2014
    Carmen Kolisnyk
    10 Hudson Street,
    Whitebridge, NSW, 2290

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

    Re: DA 1774/2013
    Address: 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street, Whitebridge. NSW 2290.
    Applicant's Name: SNL Building Constructions Pty. Ltd.

    In reference to the above application I would like to voice my deep concerns in regards to the amended development of this site. I strongly object to this over development by SNL.

    As a resident of Whitebridge, I was both stunned and disappointed that the LMCC had re-zoned the Whitebridge area with what seems like very little, if any, consultation with LMCC residents.

    The proposed development that SNL have put forward is so very much out of character with the existing area. There is already existing traffic and parking problems that have become more dangerous by the fencing off of what was a communal parking area and more importantly a recreation area for families and community residents.

    No community consultation on traffic problems which local community has knowledge of.

    Lonus Ave and Waran Road will be overloaded with vehicle movements. An entry/exit onto Lonus Ave at peak points will exacerbate the problems and impact on pedestrian safety and congestion.

    Dudley Rd, which is in gridlock at various times throughout the day, will be further compromised by the increase in density.

    If this is a medium density development I would hate to see their plans for high density. So many people crammed into such a small area are just wrong and unfair to us, the residents of Whitebridge and also to the ‘new residents’ of this ‘estate’.

    Pedestrian safety for mothers with children, school children and the elderly will be severely compromised, as well as access to Birralee Long Day Care Centre, Whitebridge High School, Whitebridge Tennis Court, bus stops and, Whitebridge shops.
    Access to Whitebridge Shops from the Hudson Street/Station Street end will be significantly extended over a less secure pathway along roadside and travel over a narrow bridge footpath.
    The increased density (originally 87) to 91 and increased storey along Dudley Rd (with underground parking, throughout estate as well) shows a total disregard and contempt for the residents of Whitebridge.

    The physical/visual impact of this development will be imposing and totally out of character in relation to the existing low level housing.

    There is very little ‘green space’ and no provision for recreational facilities for the residents, especially teenagers and children. This fact alone has been shown to lead to future antisocial behaviour.

    The Ecological corridor (Environmental Conservation Zoned Land) will be used as the developments own private green space. In SNL‘s Landscape Master Plan only ten (10) native species are mentioned. There should be a minimum of thirty (30) native species in this corridor to increase its biodiversity. Non-native and native, not local species have been selected for the individual development areas which is not acceptable. These non-native species could become invasive.

    The modification of the Ecological corridor to facilitate the estate storm water runoff shows complete lack of design process. The Fernleigh Corridor isn’t and was never meant to be an overflow gutter.

    Progress is necessary for any community to advance and grow - but this ‘progress’ should
    never be at the expense of the existing community.

    Yours Sincerely
    Carmen Kolisnyk

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

    Douglas Kolisnyk commented

    Doug Kolisnyk
    10 Hudson Street
    Whitebridge 2290
    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 Social Impact Assessment (SIA), the Crime Risk Assessment Report (CRAR), Statement of Environmental Effects (SoEE), Statement of Environmental Planning Policy,. REFERRAL RESPONSE CP – Community Land and the Transport Report by Seca Solutions.
    My concerns are listed below:

    This high density proposed development of an increase to 91 units, up to 4 storeys high with 1 storey underground, 2-4 bedrooms and 4 commercial properties on a 2.2 hectare block is out of character and proportion with the surrounding neighborhood.
    LMCC response to SNL’s SIA statement:
    “92% of all dwellings in Whitebridge are detached and just 5.8% and 2.2% of dwellings are townhouses and units respectively, there are also a number of social impacts that will arise as a result of a high density development in a predominately low density area. These impacts include:
    o a loss of sense of place,
    o increased pressure on local community and recreation infrastructure, and
    o alienation of the ‘new residents’ from the established community.
    These impacts have not been investigated in the Social Impact Assessment. The most effective mitigation method for addressing these impacts is to ‘scale back’ the development in order to ensure that the change is incremental, which will enable the community to adjust to the changes over time.”

    This density is inconsistent with Council’s statements when the land was rezoned. Council --estimated approximately 50 dwellings may be developed in the 3.1ha hectares of land to be rezoned 2(2) Residential (Urban Living). The high density, design and height of the proposed development are inconsistent with LMCC Lifestyle 2030 Strategy which recognizes that density should be lower at the urban periphery.

    Pedestrian safety
    Pedestrian safety will be severely compromised in the vicinity of the proposed development.At the ends of Lonus Ave is a major regional high school with over 1100 students and staff as well as a long day care centre caring for over 80 children. Tumpoa St, a side street to Lonus Ave, also has a pre –school with over 30 children and 6 staff per day. There is also a church, tennis court and playground regularly visited by adults and children. The only egress to the proposed development is Kopa Street, which is opposite the tennis courts and 100 metres from the day care centre.
    Morning and afternoon traffic along Lonus Ave and Waran Road at school start and finish times, is a constant flow of cars and buses. Lonus Ave is one way in, one way out. There are NO pedestrian crossings on Lonus Ave or Waran Road. A major community concern is the proposed loss of the pedestrian and cycle track accessing the Whitebridge shopping precinct and short cutting from the “white” bridge to the high school. This track has been used by the local people for over one hundred years and will add significant time to their journey if this track is abolished.

    LMCC’s report considers this to be “one of the biggest social issues resulting from” the proposal and that it has not been addressed in the SIA. It notes:
    “ This pathway is not just used by the users of the Fernleigh Track, but also by school children who live in the area to the south and east of the development (the Whitebridge residential area), to travel to school. There is also a well-used informal track providing a direct ‘desire line’ link from the Fernleigh Track to the Whitebridge shops.”

    The design is driven by the desire to maximise the number of units, rather than by quality design principles. The density/ height (majority of units being 2- 3 storeys, with 4 storeys along Dudley rd), is completely out of sync with the adjoining neighborhood and negatively impacts on the privacy of adjoining residences. Integration/connectivity with existing community is nonexistent, amenity (social, recreational, visual, design) for new and existing residents haven’t been addressed, and invasion of privacy for adjoining properties.

    The Lower Hunter Strategy states the “development of increased densities within renewal areas should deliver quality architecture that respects local character. This will be achieved through well connected and usable public spaces supporting accessible and vital centres.” (p28)
    The proposed development is characterised by repetitive buildings, harshly linear, visually unattractive and is an eyesore on the Whitebridge skyline. The 10 m height envelope over the entire site is compromised repeatedly. The final insult is the additional storey along Dudley Rd which SNL have to make applications for. This Development is totally out of sync with the Whitebridge character. The SOEE repeatedly use the terminology “desired future character”. They are seeking to impose their own desired future on Whitebridge.

    The design and density of the proposed development necessitates a range of measures to be implemented in order to avoid an increase in crime in the local area. SNL’S own statements are (2.2.3) ‘their development has the potential to put the residents of Whitebridge at risk through crime and anti-social behaviour by introducing private structures and providing public roads and parking’. Obviously the design of the development should be changed utilising lower densities!
    SNL’s CRA states that Whitebridge is characterised “by low density residential development” (p2). It outlines principles to mitigate the risk of crime: surveillance, access control, territorial reinforcement, activity and space management. (p7) This relates more to a low security prison than a suburban development with the majority of these strategies having an unfavourable impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood.
    LMCC website, SEPP 65 Principles:
    “Good design provides amenity through the physical, spatial and environmental quality of a development.
    Optimising amenity requires appropriate room dimensions and shapes, access to sunlight, natural ventilation, visual and acoustic privacy, storage, indoor and outdoor space, efficient layouts and service areas, outlook and ease of access for all age groups and degrees of mobility.”

    No mention is made of accessibility for the mixed use units provided. It’s noted that none of these units are meeting accessibility requirements from either the entrances or the car park area. It is concerning to note a failure to address the impact this development will have on the current amenity of the shopping area, as shopkeepers are losing trade due to current traffic issues.
    We note that the distance between the commercial buildings and the dwellings of Lot 1 is limited, and are concerned about the acoustic effects on the future residents. There is also poor solar access in the courtyards behind the commercial premises.

    School based pedestrian traffic / Traffic management
    Little pedestrian access within the complex itself. Units abut the road kerb forcing pedestrians to use the roadway as a pedestrian thorough fare. It is of some concern that the development does not provide more suitable pedestrian access within the complex as children make up a large proportion of pedestrian traffic. Increased pedestrian traffic around the Whitebridge shopping precinct or the associated community facilities such as the park, tennis court, child care centre and the local high school has not been dealt with in the assessment. There have already been two high school students knocked down last year, which wasn’t mentioned in the assessment.

    In SECA’s report,
    - movement summary at Whitebridge Roundabout Base, shows queue distances of 26.3m North: Waran Rd, and 60.9m Northwest: Dudley Rd,
    - movement summary at Whitebridge Roundabout Base +Dev, shows queue distances of 26.3m North: Waran Rd, and 76.5m Northwest: Dudley Rd,
    Both these observations are only over a 3 hr p.m. period. , they do not contain any information regarding new developments further along Lonus Ave plus any projected growth in the surrounding area.

    The development site is currently fully fenced denying Local residents currently have no access to a historical pedestrian thoroughfare which connected the North Eastern side of Whitebridge with its local shops, post box, bus stops, pedestrian crossing and doctor’s surgery, which is also part of the Fernleigh Track cycleway infrastructure and is identified in the Lake Macquarie Cycling Strategy. Residents and track users will now be forced to access the shopping precinct by walking along Kopa Street then Lonus Avenue and Dudley Road, or along Station St and Dudley Road. As well as adding approximately half a kilometre, the second option does not have paved footpaths, fringes a well-used street and requires either (a) crossing a very narrow footbridge and then walking across the vehicular exit in the car park, or (b) using an ill-placed pedestrian crossing which leads onto another intersection which doesn’t have a pedestrian crossing. The elderly, children and young people, dog-walkers, cyclists and parents with prams are exposed to safety issues in this regard.

    New residents will have direct access to the Whitebridge neighbourhood shops. Access to other community facilities: the child care centre, the playground, the tennis courts, Charlestown East Primary School and the local High school are all situated on the north side of Lonus Avenue. All residents will be required to cross Lonus avenue to access these facilities. No pedestrian crossings exist on Lonus Ave and this is a road which is now operating above the desired capacity set by the RMS at peak times for a shared area with vehicular and high pedestrian traffic. The impact of increased congestion, including stacking at the corners of Kopa and Lonus and the Dudley Rd roundabout, on pedestrian visibility and safety and the requirement for more appropriately positioned pedestrian crossings throughout road networks has not been properly assessed. The pedestrian/cyclist and vehicle conflict produces safety issues which are all too apparent to the community and need to be assessed.

    Air Quality
    It is difficult to believe that the developer’s assertion that air quality will be excellent as all future residents will generally use the (infrequent) bus service or the cycleway. There will be a very considerable increase in the use of vehicles in the local area as a result of this DA during construction and afterwards. The particulate fallout from heavy vehicles and prime movers will compound the problem and impose severe health risks in the future.

    SNL’s assessment stated the high demand for off-street parking at “the Dudley (sic) Neighbourhood shopping centre” and the need for high turnover on this off-street parking. For shopkeepers to retain commercial viability this turn-over is also required. It reiterates “There is a low demand for parking on Lonus Avenue and Kopa Street...predominantly used in association with nearby residences and tennis courts.” Omitted here is recognition of the use associated with the preschool and the local playground. Since the report was written [17/7/13] and a fence erected by SNL around the site [8/11/13], parking on Lonus Ave is associated with the use from the overflow of employee and customer parking from the shopping area. Low demand for parking on Lonus Avenue has transformed into high demand parking.
    SNL have acknowledged the higher than average rate of car ownership in this suburb and have made provision for parking assessed as above requirement according to the DCP in the residential section. SNL is relying on the non-timed parking in the shopping area to provide some visitor and delivery/service vehicle parking for the development. Existing businesses /residents will be disadvantaged by 91 dwellings and 4 commercial premises relying on existing parking which currently does not meet needs in peak periods.
    Development occupants, whose car parking space/s prove insufficient given the allowance of 1½ private space on average, will access the visitor parking included within the development. Overflow traffic will be forced from the proposed development into the shopping area. Parking in front of the shops opposite the development, timed to one hour and therefore only suitable for quick turnover is very limited. Refer to the Maynew Group Pty Ltd.’s submissions for more detail on parking issues.
    Suggested action
    I request an independent traffic assessment where transparency, scope, and accuracy will allow for quality data which in turn will be applied realistically to this specific neighbourhood environment. I also request genuine consideration of the negative contributions this development would have on the amenity and liveability of this neighbourhood.
    I am not comforted by SNL’s projections of future solutions when, on so many points, they have failed to acknowledge problematic existing conditions. More importantly, SNL fails to realize that this is an infill development whose density wasn’t envisaged when this site was re-zoned. Wishful thinking will not erase the many attendant traffic issues of this proposal, nor can it over-ride the physical impossibility of squeezing in 91 units, 4 commercial sites and upwards of 200 cars into an area whose road infrastructure has already been deemed to have stretched to the environmental limits of its capacity.

    Wildlife Corridor management
    “Wildlife Corridor – Proposed Development Exacerbates Bottleneck at Whitebridge” ‘The vegetation adjacent to and within this development represents a corridor that may be critical to the movement, dispersal and interchange of genetic material of threatened species from Glenrock State Conservation Area, the Awabakal Nature Reserve and Jewells Wetland. The specific section of “corridor” at the proposed development site needs to be conserved, enhanced and managed to ensure that it is functional.’ This statement is generated by Dr Carmen McCartney, Ecologist/Science Manager, please refer to her full analysis in her submission.
    Impact on existing infrastructure.

    Almost the total area of the proposed development is planned for “medium density” residential housing, and “Urban Centre” development, excluding those parts formally zoned as Conservation 7(2) under Lake Macquarie Environmental Plan 2004 (Amendment 53). The Conservation Zone along the SE side of the site is 20m wide except closer to Dudley Rd where it is only approximately 9m wide.
    The proposed housing planned in the DA as submitted is essentially of linear multi-storey attached units oriented in a NW/SE direction. The linear design of the development is totally contrary to basic land management practice. In effect there is virtually no “land surface” that remains to be managed. By far the major part of the whole site is under a sealed surface except for the Conservation Zone.

    Mansfield Urban report state the Coastal Plains Smooth Barked -Apple Woodland Plant communities is present in the LMCC Vegetation Community Map for this area. Upon inspection of LMCC V.C.M. the corridor is more closely linked to: 30e - Coastal Plains Stringybark-Apple Forest, 11 – Coastal Sheltered Apple – Peppermint Forest & 12 Hunter Valley Moist Forest. The suitable trees they state are therefore in question.
    Further investigation reveals a number of ‘Non Native’ plant species used throughout the Development , such as Pyrus Capital, Russela equisetoformis, Dwarf Raphaolepis Indica, Trachelospermum, White Crepe Myrtle, Cast Iron Plant, . These plant species are not appropriate as they don’t add to the local biodiversity , do not

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

    James "Mark" Smith commented

    3 Salway Cl
    Whitebridge 2290
    26 September 2014

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

    Re: Proposed development on Dudley Rd / Kopa St, Whitebridge
    DA number: 1774/2013
    Address: 142-146 Dudley Rd and 2-4 Kopa St Whitebridge NSW 2290
    Applicant: SNL Building Constructions Pty ltd

    I am a 62 year-old retiree and live with my wife in Whitebridge. I object to the scale and nature of the proposed development, the specifics of which are detailed above.
    While I acknowledge that there have been some limited improvements since the proponent made their initial submission, the bigger, more objectionable issues remain unresolved.
    I shop in the Whitebridge shopping centre several times a week and drive through the area several times a day and am convinced that a development such as this will have a substantial detrimental impact on the amenity, safety and social harmony of the suburb.
    In my initial submission I referred to the level of community consultation by the developer. Indeed, there seemed to be no real consultation; it was merely an opportunity for the “developer” to dictate to the community what they were going to do with the site. No input from the local community was welcomed unless, I think, it was to pat the developer on the head and say “gee, what a wonderful plan!” – which, of course, it is not. Indeed, in my view, the nearest thing to consultation at this meeting was the first three letters of the word. Since then, there has been no improvement whatsoever, with the spokes-person on more than one occasion telling a long term neighbour of the site in a dismissive manner “If you don’t like it, move!”. They seem to have confused the word “consult”, with the word “insult”.
    As far as traffic is concerned, the development is already having a strongly detrimental influence. With the loss of parking spaces (prior to the fencing off of the “development” site there was a significant number of parking spaces in the area to the east of the bottle shop), there is increased stacking of traffic at the round-about as vehicles vie for fewer spaces and are unable to gain a free-flowing access to off street parking.
    If the development were to proceed in its present amended proposed form it would generate additional flow onto Lonus Ave and then onto Dudley Rd via the round-about and all of this extra traffic would enter via Kopa St. With the addition of an extra five residential units since the initial D.A., this is going to be even more congested than the unacceptably high level of flow in that proposition. Lonus Ave is already extremely busy, especially at start and finish times for Whitebridge High, with traffic generally backed up well back past the Kopa St corner. This increase in vehicle movements will exacerbate already excessive traffic problems. Apart from longer queues on existing roads, I could imagine residents of the ghetto (sorry – my opinion – see later section dealing with “social impact”) – development, leaving for work of a morning, or going to pick up children later in the day, being backed up down Kopa St and into the private streets on which they would be living and, therefore, being unable to escape.
    All of this boils down to increased traffic flow, more stress on drivers, more risks being taken as drivers try to enter or cross various traffic flows / queues and, inevitably, more risk for other drivers and pedestrians, which would include students walking to and from Whitebridge High as well as parents and toddlers arriving at and leaving the pre-schools and day care centres which are near by to the site of the proposed development. I view it as a tragedy waiting to happen.
    I note that in their proposal the developers included images of low traffic flow in the area adjacent to the development. This was taken in a low traffic flow period and could just as validly, been taken at about 1.00am on a Tuesday. Perhaps they would have liked to come back and take their photos during the morning peak, or at the end of the school day, or on a busy Saturday morning. Perhaps then they might have developed a better understanding of the area they are trying to change. I am sure that they would not seek to mislead Council with an unrepresentative image!
    Tell them they’re dreamin’!
    I believe that there will be a considerable degree of undesirable social impact if this “development” is allowed to proceed in the form of the present proposal.
    Originally eighty seven, now ninety one residential and three commercial units form this proposal. These range up to 5 floors and, in some sections exceed the height limit for the area by 40%. It is also a massive over-development of the site. The density does not fit in with the nature and character of Whitebridge and should be scaled back to something more in harmony with its surroundings. Apart from the multitude of social pressures that are generally recognised as evolving in tight packed densely populated urban areas (often seen as becoming ghettos as social stresses of close packed living manifest themselves), there is a strong impact on surrounding residents and passers-by. It is noted that, in an evident determination to squeeze every last piece of potential construction out of the site, there is a shortage of green and open space in the plans and this will add to the ghetto nature of the development. Although there is some improvement compared to the original DA, it is noted that some of the green areas on the plans are located over underground parking areas and will be unlikely to provide for any significant depth of soil and, therefore, there will be no shrubs or trees of any significant size. Indeed, this is a best case scenario – the plans indicate that much of the area in the Roof Top Terraces will be synthetic turf and planter boxes – synthetic gardens. They may as well just paint the concrete green to contribute to green spaces!
    The residents of Lonus Ave and Kopa St who back onto this site will be particularly hard hit. First, there would be construction noise immediately over there back fence. Given that SNL have stated that this “development” will take place in stages, there is no known end-date for them to have any inkling as to when to noise would stop. Second there would be the on-going noise coming from the new residences. Some of this would be social noises as people interact, be that a happy or aggressive / angry manner. Other noise could be more constant, as the design specifies that air-conditioners would be located on these units. Existing residents could be confronted by a wall of air-conditioner noise bombarding them from just over the fence; endless in summer, and endless in winter.
    Tell them they’re dreamin’!
    It is further noted that plans for planting on the site include many exotic species. Some are deciduous (not favoured by Council and RFS). These include ornamental pear, crepe myrtle and Hong Kong orchid tree. There is also very limited appropriate planting in the environmental zone. In addition, all existing trees are being removed from the site AND trees from outside of the site at the end of Kopa St are also slated for removal. This hardly reflects a well thought out proposal for a location adjacent to a number of sensitive vegetative communities.
    On the matter of the environmental zone, it is unacceptable that the proponent is planning to appropriate this area for their own use. It should not be used for wide pathways and drainage of water from the hard surfaces in the “development”. Further, the inadequate plantings in this area and the previously mentioned removal of trees from the end of Kopa St and on the NE corner of the site seem to suggest that that the proponent is trying to triple dip and use this area as an environmental zone, a drainage sump and as an APZ. This is also evidenced by the placement of the Parkside Villas (lots 21-24) right on the boundary of the buffer zone. These uses are mutually incompatible.
    Adjacent to the development is the heritage Fernleigh Track. Contrary to heritage and planning requirements this development will, in a dominating way, overlook the track and dominate the views from it.
    Tell them they’re dreamin’!
    The excessive density of the proposal is far removed from the need to fit into and be sympathetic to the existing character of the Whitebridge area. There are adequate housing statistics available, but the suburb is very heavily single dwelling housing blocks with some units (mostly single storey). There are a few double storey developments. A perusal of the plans for Kopa St and St E reveal repetitive rows of small, tightly packed terraces. These are more of the character of inner city suburbs, such as Cooks Hill; NOT Whitebridge!
    It should be noted that the proponent in their proposal refers to the Sect. 94 contributions that they will be making; yet they then go on to put the suggestion that they should gift the roads in the development, the park and Whitebridge Square to the Council and then be excused from making the Sect.94 contributions. These are assets that should rightfully be part of the development regardless and, by trying to pass them over to the Council the developer is trying to pass on the maintenance and running costs in perpetuity – avoiding an appropriate cost now and flick passing on-going expenses into the future. Rate payers should not have to tolerate this. It is NOT net public benefit; it is net public cost!
    Don’t tell them they’re dreamin’; tell them they’re joking!
    I have heard proponents of the proposal describe this as a quality development, and I am forced to agree with them. There can be good quality and there can be poor quality and, in my opinion, this amended proposal, although marginally improved in some respects and significantly worse in others, certainly falls well into the latter category.
    All the developer seems to care about is “Yield, yield and yield”. The Whitebridge community will not yield!
    For the reasons set out above, I still object to this type of development being foisted onto my suburb and onto our community.

    Yours sincerely

    Mark Smith
    (J M Smith)

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