Recent comments

  1. 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.


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

    Margaret Mcdougall commented

    21/120 Redhead St, Redhead
    Redhead, 2290
    26/09/2014

    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.

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

    Keith Kolisnyk commented

    11 Goulburn Street
    Dudley, 2290
    26/09/2014

    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

    SAFETY:
    I feel concerned for safety if this development is approved. Safety will be an issue when using the shops and when crossing busy Dudley Road. 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.

    TRAFFIC CONGESTION:
    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.

    DENSITY:
    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.

    SOCIAL IMPACT:
    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.

    PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS:
    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.

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

    John Mcdougall commented

    19 Railway Street
    Dudley, 2290
    26/09/2014

    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.

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

    Greg Boundy commented

    21 Railway Street
    Dudley, 2290
    26/09/2014

    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.

  6. 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.
    Sir/Madam,

    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.

    TRAFFIC IMPACT
    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.

    SOCIAL IMPACT
    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.

    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
    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

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

    Douglas Kolisnyk commented

    Doug Kolisnyk
    10 Hudson Street
    Whitebridge 2290
    26/09/2014
    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:

    • SOCIAL IMPACT :
    Density
    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.”

    Design
    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.

    Crime
    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.
    Amenity
    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.

    • TRAFFIC IMPACT:
    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.

    Parking/Transport
    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.

    • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
    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

  8. 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)

  9. In Brunswick East VIC on “-Demolition of existing...” at Downtowner On Lygon 66-88 Lygon Street Carlton VIC 3053:

    Lou Baxter commented

    I object to any reduction of car parking requirements as this creates so many problems in the nearby community.

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

    Graham McDonald commented

    My wife and I wholeheartedly support the Menai Baptist proposal to move from one building of the school to another.

    All this proposal is asking is that the church move Sunday services from one building to another which will have no change on traffic and parking.

    Another advantage of this new facility which has been purpose built making it more enjoyable for those who attend and very importantly allows better access for those with physical disabilities. The improved acoustics can only minimise any noise reaching the outside of the building.

    Menai resident for over 20 years.

    Graham & Margaret McDonald

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

    Maxine Leslie Grice commented

    I support this application for Menai Baptist Church to move its Services to the Performing Arts Centre. As a musician I appreciate the quality of a purpose-built facility and the benefits it to brings to all in regards to acoustics and sound quality. The building also provides excellent access, particularly for those with mobility issues. As a relatively new member of the church I found the media centre awkward to locate and it offers a temporary solution at best, with the need for weekly setup and packup of equipment.
    I feel that this would be a positive move for the church and that it would not impact neighbours adversely in any way. It seems logical to use a building for that which it was built.
    I trust that Sutherland Shire Council will consider this application favourably.

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

    Sarah Purvis commented

    I wish to express my objection towards DA 1774/2013.

    The amended plan pays only lip-service to community and council concerns.
    Traffic congestion remains a huge problem. The now 92 units in the village centre will create a tremendous amount of traffic and is a huge concern, especially when considering the suburb is a gateway to Dudley and Redhead.

    Pedestrian 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.

    The culture of the suburb will be adversely impacted by having a development in its centre that is in such stark contrast to how the rest of residents in the suburb are living, particularly now that the design incorporates 4 storeys.

    The developer has either paid no attention to the concerns of the community, or (more likely) avoided addressing the concerns of the community because they are in conflict with their own agenda. To then request the compulsory contribution to council be waived demonstrates the lack of goodwill in their intentions. It is possible to profit from developing within a community whilst also improving that community. We only wish SNL took this perspective so that everyone could 'profit'.

    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.

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

    Janelle Graves commented

    My letter in opposition to the Whitebridge development, in its present form:-

    Re: DA 1774/2013
    Address: 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street, Whitebridge. NSW 2290.

    I have been a resident of Dudley for over 25 years. Travelling along Dudley Road through Whitebridge has been the most direct route to Charlestown from my home.

    The revised plan for the new development between Kopa Street and Dudley Road Whitebridge is totally unsuitable for the area. The new plan has not made any improvements on the original planned construction.

    As I have previously written, the new development hoped for Whitebridge was to compliment the existing neighbourhood. It would seem sensible that the new housing division would assimilate new residents to the area with ease, by incorporating living standards that are in keeping with the suburbs relaxed theme.

    This very dense housing complex is in contradiction with its surroundings.

    This very dense housing complex is not the precursor for relaxed suburban cohabiting . The cramped living conditions intended for this new complex are more appropriate for inner city accommodation. Previous submissions have verbalised this concern in more technical terms. Blatantly, this conglomeration is akin to the city housing complexes built, in other countries, and in turn demolished because they have eventually become ghettos.

    The Whitebridge shopping centre has been a busy commercial centre since I first moved to the area. The centre has grown in popularity in the more recent few years with the increase in shops and addition of eating venues. Owing to the popularity of these ventures the traffic is at a maximum during trading hours, most days. The area is "extreme-high-risk" for an accident in its present state. The large influx of traffic planned for the new housing development, added to the existing traffic, equates to traffic mayhem.

    The fact that there is only one entrance and exit to this densely populated housing estate does not sit well when contemplating that it is at real risk of bush fire each season.

    The updated submission has increased the height of the buildings. This is further to the point of cramped living conditions, without even considering the council height regulations.

    A safe, well planned housing development for Whitebridge please.

    Regards
    Janelle Graves

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

    Malcolm and Joan Power commented

    We support this application.

    Menai Baptist Church has been an integral part of the Bangor community for over thirty years. At this stage of our development it is our wish to worship in the larger space that the Performing Arts Centre affords. It will cater for growth and enhance mobility for members of our congregation.

    Parking will continue to be within the property and sound testing has conclusively shown that noise will not be an issue.

    We trust that Sutherland Shire Council will receive this request favourably.

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

    Suzanne Little commented

    I would like to support the current application to move the Menai Baptist services from one building (Media Centre) to another, more-efficient building (Performing Arts Centre) on the same site.

    This move will not alter existing parking, of which members have consciously attempted to minimise on road parking. The new facility has been purpose built making it more enjoyable for those who attend and very importantly allows better access for those with physical disabilities. The improved acoustics can only minimise any noise reaching the outside of the building

    I wait with eager anticipation of your acceptance of the application that will result such positive outcomes.
    .
    Sue Little (resident of Menai for 32 years)

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

    Karyn Huizing commented

    To whom it may concern, please accept this submission regarding the development
    . DA-1774/2013, 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street Whitebridge
    I am writing to voice my extreme objection to various elements of this developments new design.
    MYSELF AND MY FAMILY ARE PARTICULARLY AFFECTED AS WE ADJOIN THE DEVELOPMENT AND OUR PROPERTY IS ON THE CORNER OF KOPA ST. (The only entry and exit)
    Councils are employed for all the people, not just those of wealth and it is my opinion that this community has rallied together with good reason for a common goal: That being a good development that fits into the local community. I also feel that the decision that is made about this development may set a standard for other properties along this corridor of land previously planned for a major bypass.
    While I understand this property will be developed I agree with the concerns of the many submissions already lodged regarding the following issues:
    1)Traffic Issues
    *Kopa St being the only access and added traffic congestion in local area. This area is outrageous now without the burden of extra traffic.
    I draw your attention to the following links 2 of which are taken from my property and 1 a video taken at school time PM.
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=805396379474141&set=o.390027067798916&type=2&theater
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10202767772455981&set=o.390027067798916&type=1&theater
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=633417736695367&set=o.390027067798916&type=1&theater
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=633417163362091&set=o.390027067798916&type=1&theater
    *The waiting times shown in the traffic study shocked me. As is demonstrated in the above links traffic can be backed up past Bula St on Dudley Rd and past Turrug St on Lonus ave.
    * I constantly witness students endangering themselves by trying to cross between traffic. This development will increase traffic and further the danger to school students.
    *Cars are unable to access or leave driveways when this daily traffic jam occurs.
    * Staff from Whitebridge shops now park along Lonus Ave and it is difficult to pass when buses are arriving leaving the school.It is only a matter of time before accidents occur.
    *There have been several near misses with traffic leaving the long day care centre.
    *The parking at Whitebridge shops is already at capacity ALL DAY. Locals are well aware of the dangers of the car park as it exists now with the entry and exit points both very dangerous. This is before any more pressure is added by this high volume development.
    *Kopa St is already used as a parking area for users of the Fernleigh track before adding to the parking on the street. Not everyone will park in underground parking particularly during the day.
    *I am extremely concerned about the impact on my family and home during the construction phase of such a huge development. How long will we be subject to building on the adjacent block and what impact will it have on our lives,road etc.
    *When voicing my concern about the scale and how this will affect me I was basically told if I didn't like it I could always move! This is my home of 20+ years and now I should move? I believe this shows an arrogance of developers and total lack of respect for community should it be allowed to go ahead in it's current form.
    2) Size and design of Development.
    *This development is not in keeping with surrounding areas. There are no developments of this size in the surrounding area and this DA is akin to building a city within a suburb. The 2 and 3 storeys are far too high and still too dense for this area and the plan for the commercial development of 4 storeys does not fit at all with the current surrounds at all. It will affect the whole shopping village.
    *Council zoning of this area would allow for about half the houses to be built and council needs to look at the views of the community.
    *It encroaches on the privacy of adjoining properties greatly and changes the visual landscape of the area dramatically.
    *.This development is widely condemned by the local community and myself due in part to the sheer density.
    *This land is only a part of the corridor that was zoned for the eastern bypass and this parcel of land needs to be managed very carefully as it is a catalyst for future developments along this important land corridor that adjoins the Fernleigh track.
    *There is still minimal greenspace or communal areas in which youth and children can spend time.

    * I would also bring your attention to the tree referral response 10/9/14
    Regarding tree 29 - "One of the trees (29) may be located partially on the adjoining property, where adjoining owners consent may be required prior to council consenting to removal"
    I would choose this tree to remain as it is a preference to looking at a stark brick wall.

    This report also states that there has been no regard to recommendations as outlined within Section 6.5 of the submitted Preliminary Arborist report. I don't understand how this could possibly be acceptable to council.

    It is my hope that this development can be halved in size. This would better enable this community to continue to function as a seaside community where people are happy with their surrounds and houses are built with environment and community in mind.
    I feel strongly that council and JRRP should be guided by the communities objections to this development.
    Regards
    Karyn Huizing

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

    Peter and Julie Greer commented

    We strongly support this application for Menai Baptist Church Sunday gatherings to relocate to the PAC. As both regular attendees of the church and nearby residents of Bangaroo Street we feel this would have little or no impact on the local residents. The traffic and parking impact on a Sunday would be minimal compared to that of weekday school traffic as the onsite parking is already utilised. In my experience, there is no noise disruption whatsoever to neighbours while a musical performance or similar is taking place within the PAC. We support this application as a way to allow the local church to continue to meet in a more accessible space within the Inaburra grounds and have a positive impact on local residents.

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

    Mrs. Mearns E. Hall commented

    25th September, 2014 Mrs. Mearns E. Hall
    84 Lonus Ave,
    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.
    Sir/Madam,

    In reference to the above application I would like to voice my deep concerns in regards to the development of this site in its current form. 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.
    I have much concern over the amended DA 1774/2013 as it seems the developer is injecting another (4) four dwellings (91 to the original 87 dwellings, which initially should have been 40 dwellings) and adding another story onto Dudley Road.

    TRAFFIC IMPACT
    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. The traffic congestion will only increase out of Kopa Street trying to access Lonus Avenue and the associated round-a-bout on Dudley Road during peak week days and Saturday mornings on weekends.

    There is still only one entry and exit road into this subdivision (suburb ?)

    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.

    The amendment hasn’t changed much of the original plan. It is still overdevelopment for this suburb. There is the possibility for approx. up to 750 car movements in and out of Kopa Street per day.

    SOCIAL IMPACT
    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 physical/visual impact of this development will be imposing in relation to the existing low level housing.

    The developers have not used world best practice in the design, noted as “Pyramid Layering”. As the name suggests there would be single story dwellings on the boundary, gradually gaining height toward the centre of the estate, 2 to 3 story’s, which would cause no overshadowing of existing residences and a less bulky look.

    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

    The Ecological corridor (Environmental Conservation Zoned Land) will be modified in use. In SNL‘s Landscape Master Plan only three (3) 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.

    With the Ecological corridor’s modifications are shown to include a pathway with an adjoining swale and two large retention ponds. Stormwater/surface overflows are expected to flow onto the Fernleigh track. This could result in degradation/pollution of the track and water catchment near Glenrock Lagoon.

    LMCC and SNL have failed to take into account the endangered Sugar Glider population in the surrounding area as well. With breaks in the ‘canopy’, caused by modifications and proposed new plantings,this ‘fauna’ population which is already on a knife edge, will no doubt suffer. Not exactly complying to LMCC’s sustainability/biodiversity claims for the area.

    The size of this development needs to be halved.

    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
    Mrs. Hall

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

    Greater Charlestown Sustainable Neighbourhood Group commented

    The Greater Charlestown Sustainable Neighbourhood Group (Greater Charlestown SNG) has recently been established with the assistance of Lake Macquarie City Council with the vision of creating a vibrant, friendly and healthy neighbourhood.

    As part of the formation of our group, a Sustainable Neighbourhood Action Plan was developed, which represents the goals and visions of the Greater Charlestown Community. There are five key objectives of this Action Plan¸which the development of 142 Dudley Rd Whitebridge NSW 2290 (DA-1774/2013) is at odds with:

    1 - Strong community spirit; the development in its previous and current proposal form has been strongly opposed by the local community due to a multitude of reasons which have not been considered in the adaptation of the initial plans. The Greater Charlestown SNG urges the Joint Regional Planning Panel to consider the concerns of the community which have united in requesting a more sustainable and better designed development for the area. Our community has a strong community spirit that enhances the wellbeing of our community, and we would like this voice to be listened to and consulted.

    2 - Abundant healthy natural environment; the area to be developed currently provides a habitat corridor along Ferneleigh track; linking state conservation areas Glenrock State Conservation Area and Awabakal Nature Reserve as well as feeding into Belmont/Jewells Wetlands, and further afield to the Stockton Bight to Watagans’ corridor, which in turn links to the Watagan and Yengo National Parks. These biodiversity corridors are essential to maintain the ecosystem health of our local conservation areas. We request the development of this land plans and provides space for the continuation of this habitat corridor.

    3 - Well designed and used community infrastructure; the lack of infrastructure initiatives put forward in the proposal will lead to congested traffic conditions, parking restrictions, and a multitude of other hazards for pedestrians and the vast number of cyclists that access Fernleigh Track. We request that these considerations form an essential part of the development, so the development will be beneficial to our community.
    4 - Leading local sustainability initiatives and practices; the plan in its current form offers no initiatives in the way of sustainability best practice. We request that there are changes made to building design and layout to incorporate sustainability best practise knowledge.
    5 - Distinctive village feel; if approved in its current form, the distinctive village feel of both Whitebridge and neighbouring suburbs namely Kahibah and Dudley is at risk. The high rise and high density nature is not in keeping with the prized village feel that our community is proud of. We request that the development improves the central village feel of Whitebridge shops and does not detract from it.

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

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

    Paul Cockrem commented

    My wife and I have been residents in Alfords Point since 1985, where our 4 children have grown-up. We have seen many good examples of development in our area and we have been actively involved in a number of local organisations, such as sporting groups, schools, churches etc., over those years.

    As local residents and attendees of Menai Baptist Church, we wholeheartedly support the Church's application to utilise the Performing Arts Centre for Sunday Services. It's readily apparent that this purpose-built facility provides better outcomes for all-concerned in respect of several aspects:
    * excellent acoustics internally (with in-built provision for the hearing impaired) means quieter noise levels externally;
    * continued off-street parking able to be used (with closer access for the physically impaired);
    * elimination of the current set-up/set-down time taken to use the Media Centre means that such time can be more effectively used for people-oriented activities eg. counselling, support groups etc.

    Essentially, the application only relates to a move from one building (Media Centre) to another, more-efficient, building (Performing Arts Centre) on the same site. I look forward to monitoring the progress of this application.

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

    colin kemp commented

    As a resident of Bodalla cres since April 1980, we precede any development at Inaburra and when we arrived here it was but a derelict remains of a rural property. We have seen this school including the church grow over these 34 years.

    We are regular attendees of the church on site since the early 1990's.

    The relocation of the church service from one building to another will have no effect at all on neighbors . Approval should be given to use a modern purpose built venue rather than existing facilities which are inferior.

  22. In Granville NSW on “65-71 Cowper Street (Cnr...” at 65 Cowper Street Granville NSW 2142:

    Susan commented

    How can a Heritage Listed building get permission for demolition?
    I thought the purpose of Heritage Listing was to keep the history???
    Interesting

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

    Kay & Steve Laurence commented

    As residents of Menai and attendees of Menai Baptist Church, we wish to support the approval of the proposal for Menai Baptist Church to meet on Sundays in the Performing Arts Centre. There would be no change to noise (in fact improvement), traffic or activities that are currently in operation.
    Many churches around the Shire use school facilities with no problem or objection.
    Menai Baptist Church seek the same consideration and understanding as these other churches have been afforded.

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

    Neil Dawson commented

    I fully endorse and support the approval of the proposal for Menai Baptist Church to be able to meet for worship services on Sunday in the Performing Arts Centre (PAC) situated at Inaburra School.

    This facility (PAC) has been purpose built to provide for live performances, with state of the art acoustic control (to ensure negligible sound outside the building), seating (to ensure comfort for those attending, especially the elderly) and access (to allow ease of entry/exit for disabled, families with strollers, and the elderly).

    This proposal highlights the fact that the church already meets on Sunday within Inaburra, but in an inadequate room with difficult access, and that the change of venue to the PAC will not in any way result in a negative change for the neighbours of the school. Parking in contained within the school campus and the proposal is simply asking for a change of location from one room in the school to another (albeit a more suitable room).

    Many churches make use of school facilities all over Sydney on any given Sunday and support and contribute positively to their communities in many ways. Menai Baptist Church has served the 2234 district for over 30 years and is a source of invaluable community connection and support. This proposal would allow the church to continue its positive contribution to our community for years to come.

    I am a resident of Billa Road Bangor and a member of Menai Baptist Church.

  25. In Brunswick East VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 180 Glenlyon Road, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Leon Melven commented

    I am writing to object to the waiver of required car parking for the proposed development of 180 Glenlyon Road. The proposal indicates that plans for this property will include construction of a seven dwellings including two double storey and five triple storey and requests a waiver in required car parking.

    We are deeply concerned about the impact a reduction in car parking requirements that the new development will have on this already heavily congested area of Brunswick East. Our street alone is pushed to the limit many times during the week and residents are often forced to search further than their own street for parking.

    From August 2011 residents of new apartment dwellings are not entitled to any residential parking permits. The hope is that this will reduce parking pressures for existing residents. With this in mind, this development must be able to accommodate all variations of parking within its existing design.

  26. In Launceston TAS on “Food Services -...” at 1A Bridge Road Launceston TAS 7250:

    William Wright commented

    The Development relies on too much use of public amenities and infrastructure to benefit a private business at the detriment of our visitor markets...This Gorge Road area is already under traffic pressure from the West Tamar Council's over-development of the upper regions above Trevallyn.

    The Cataract Gorge visitation is growing, with 226,899 Interstate/Overseas visitors in year to June 2014. This does NOT include Tasmanian visitors. This bottle neck does not need more vehicles and less ambiance.

    The TIA report attached (sect. 4.3.3 Parking Impacts) quotes "the development relies on available public parking". The report says the developers can get away with this by -
    1. sending buses up through Trevallyn shopping precinct and around the Trevallyn Primary School (are they kidding?) for the convenience of the developer's customers.
    2.The report actually recommends to keep secret the fact that the Penny Royal car park is owned by the ratepayers, so that tourists to the Gorge wont be able to find it!
    3. Make Bridge St/ Paterson st public parking even less available, for the benefit of the developer.

    This cost transferring on to the rate- payers and tourists is unethical and border-line scam.

    Additionally, the link footpath from the Bridge to Trevallyn Village, completed during Mayor Dickenson's period, has become a major commuter and tourist pedestrian asset. This significant walkway now needs a second stage design/rebuild to alleviate the risks of increased traffic and improve the visitor experience.

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

    Lisa Suprano commented

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Brett Suprano commented

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

    The INCREASE of the amount of units in this new plan further worsens the problem of the density being way too high for the area. The land was intended for 40-50 dwellings, which is still much more dense than the rest of Whitebridge, but which could still blend in with the suburb which should be the intention of any new development.

    The fact that the developer has also INCREASED the number of storeys to 4 along Dudley Road shows further lack of regard for community concerns and council planning guidelines. The intended maximum for a neighbourhood centre is HALF this.

    To think the developer also requests the s94 contribution be waived demonstrates their self-serving intentions. It is a ludicrous request in light of already using public land on Dudley Road and Kopa Street AND the environmental corridor as a pathway from the Track to Dudley Road. Although we live in a society that encourages capitalism, we also strive for quality lifestyles and living standards. This should not be compromised as it serves the greater good.

    The developer assumes to know ’the desired future of Whitebridge’ but it is obvious in reading council’s Lifestyle 2020 and 2030 documents that although urban consolidation is desirable, there was no intention that it be achieved in such a drastic, thoughtless and inappropriate manner. It was once fortunate for Whitebridge that a large parcel of undeveloped land existed, as the possibilities were exciting – now it is extremely unfortunate as it could mean the destruction of the suburb as we know it.

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

    Kristen Hepple commented

    I strongly oppose the proposed development at Dudley Road and Kopa Street, Whitebridge.

    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.

    The dramatic increase in traffic will affect the SAFETY of the area for motorists and pedestrians alike.

    There are SOCIAL PROBLEMS associated with this type of development such as an increase in CRIME and ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR. This is particularly pertinent when considering high potential for the development being used as rental ropertiess rather than being owner-occupied; it is when a large number of rental properties are placed together that statistics show problems may arise.

    I am also concerned about the ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT of this development. Little regard is being shown for the environmental corridor, which should not be used for thoroughfare. Provisions for stormwater are inadequate. Aestethically, it impedes negatively on the Fernleigh Track. 3-4 STOREYS DOES NOT FIT THE SURROUNDINGS. It will look OUT-OF-PLACE in Whitebridge.

    The DENSITY is ridiculously high and unsuitable for the area. The developer showed great disrespect by increasing the number of units in the re-design, after the community had expressed so much concern over the issue of density already.

    This development 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.

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

    Jason Hepple commented

    I write again in opposition of the development at Kopa Streets and Dudley Road, Whitebridge for similar AND additional reasons.

    The site was originally intended for 40-50 dwellings (even less considering the original calculation included land on the other side of Kopa Street). To suggest 92 dwellings demonstrates a lack of understanding on the part of the developer of Whitebridge being a Neighbourhood Centre, underneath Town Centre and Regional Centre on the LMCC hierarchy.

    Further to this, 4 storeys, or even 3, does not reflect LMCC’s guidelines for development within a Neighbourhood Centre.

    Traffic safety of schoolchildren and other pedestrians will be compromised by this development. It 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 92 dwellings into the centre of the suburb where they will be required to use the already busy roads that service schools in the area.

    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 proposed development of this site is opportunistic and detrimental to the long-standing community.

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