Recent comments

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

    Fred & Jann Cook commented

    My wife and I strongly support the proposal for Menai Baptist Church to move to the Performing Arts Centre (PAC) for its Sunday Worship Services.
    As members of the church since 1981 and being very actively involved in its leadership and support through various ministries, including being a church elder, chairman and member of the Inaburra School Board, and many community activities, we have witnessed the church being a vital part of the Menai community.
    We would suggest the following considerations in support of the proposal:-
    1. It would necessitate an internal move within the site from the Media Centre to the PAC and not impinge on any external precinct.
    2. Parking would continue as is, within the current site.
    3. The Church congregation largely comprises Menai residents who readily appreciate the needs and concerns of neighbours in the district.
    4. While the church and school have very strong affiliation, the deletion of having weekly set up/set down of school furniture and effects each Sunday in the Media Centre, would greatly assist both parties by the church moving into the PAC.
    5. The PAC provides modern purpose-built facilities that enhance access for the elderly and infirm, and it is acoustically designed to assist hearing impaired and also reduces the impact of external noise emanating from the building.
    6. The entry to the PAC provides better access for the Church members and community visitors from the Billa Road, than does the present Media Centre.
    Jann & Fred Cook

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

    L Masters commented

    I believe that the reason for the treatment plant at Cooranbong is because it is cheaper to build the plant in Cooranbong than to connect to existing pipes and thus needing to upgrade Marconi Rd treatment plant.

    The proposed site is in a very close proximity to Childcare facility, community hall and commercial shops which are about to be upgraded themselves. I do not think it would be good for any business in the centre if there is a woft of sewerage drifting past the front doors and the noses of customers while they shop. Customers will go elsewhere to avoid the stench.

    Surely LMCC would have had to request a complete utilities plan from JPG all those years ago when the initial master plan was created for Watagan Park which included sewer. If the plan was to put it where its now proposed than why was it not disclosed to me (or anyone else) when I went to purchase the land in Watagan Park.

    Upgrade Marconi Rd now and be done with it. I am sure that was the original plan, so stick with it and stop trying to save a buck at the expense of local residents.

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

    Alasdair Dougall commented

    I support Menai Baptist Church's DA for the use of the performing arts centre.

    The PAC is a purpose built building and it makes perfect sense for it to be utilised for Sunday worship services.

    I have been a resident of Menai for 14 years.

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

    Grace Andrews commented

    I strongly oppose the proposal for a sewage treatment plant on Freeman's Drive. The smell, noise and environmental concerns of this proposal make me worried for the future of our little village.

    Johnson Property Group has already shown its true colors and lack of community spirit by its handling of the relocation of the aviation school where Watagan Park is now being built.

    We have something wonderful here in Cooranbong and should not sell our piece of paradise to the highest bidder.

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

    Owen Thomas commented

    I support this application.
    I am a nearby resident (across the valley in James Close) and have had 2 children attend Inaburra School.
    The Performing Arts Centre is ideally suited for use as a meeting place for the style of gathering proposed by Menai Baptist Church. The acoustic features of the Centre would limit any sound disruption to neighbours, parking is available on site, and the Centre offers the latest in safety engineering thereby managing any risk for those attending events.
    In preference to some of the modified commercial/industrial spaces being used by local churches and other community groups, it seems logical to use a purpose built facility.
    Owen Thomas

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

    Linda Stuart commented

    The various negative environmental impacts of the proposed sewerage treatment plant in Cooranbong have been outlined in the large number of submissions to the LMCC.

    As a resident of Avondale Springs, I would like to highlight the fact that there will always be potential run off and resultant negative impacts on waterway nutrients if the plant is located as proposed or within Watagan Park estate, as Avondale Springs is downstream from it. Connecting into an existing treatment plant like the one at Marconi Road is the safest solution for the community of Cooranbong at so many levels. A decision that does not consider all possible repercussions - one that is based on financial concerns alone, is environmentally and socially irresponsible.

    Connecting to the existing treatment plant is the most sensible proposal if we wish to achieve a high quality, long-term solution for Watagan Park sewage treatment that meets the needs of the community.

    Please consider connecting the Watagan Park 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.

    I would like to reiterate: A decision that does not consider all possible repercussions - one that is based on financial concerns alone, is environmentally and socially irresponsible.

  7. In on “Caravan Parks - demolition...” at <strong>66 Wattle Crescent, GLOSSODIA</strong>:

    Graham Whitehead commented

    They are calling it a caravan park but the site plan shows the true nature of the proposal - 150 'long term' cabins and not a single space for a caravan. This is a low cost housing proposal dressed up to look like a harmless tourist park.

    Developments like this invariably attract undesirables which results in increased crime in surrounding areas and a lowering of property values.

    If you live in Glossodia or surrounding areas, you need to let Hawkesbury Council know that you don't want this type of housing in your home town.

  8. 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?

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

  30. 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.


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