Recent comments

  1. In Canterbury VIC on “Installation and use of a...” at 107 Mont Albert Road Canterbury VIC 3126:

    Sally McIntosh commented

    I live near the property in question, which is in a residential area. It is not in keeping with the local area to erect a sign large enough to require planning permission. The current sign attached to the fence is in keeping with the neighborhood.

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

    Lynden Jacobi commented

    One major concern that has been mentioned in numerous submissions by locals and counselors is the lack of appropriate communal open space. Ideally for a development of this size it would be good to have open space closer to 5000m2 in an area that adjoins the new development and the existing suburb.
    As it is the almost 1000m2 open space, at one fifth of the desirable size, is set in the centre of the development and will be owned under strata to Lot 3. SNL have said it will be an easement, which means it will be able to be used by all.
    On 25 September 2014 in LMCC’s Referral Response CP – Community Land, they did not support this proposed open space. Quote:
    1. “ The location, size, and dedication of the public park is not supported.
    The applicant has proposed a public park within the development, and sighted it as a potential material public benefit to be dedicated to Council.
    For the dwellings created as part of the development, the park will provide a great resource within close proximity, which will positively benefit the amenity of the adjoining dwellings and road network.
    However, intentional or not, the plans use a number of informal territorial enforcement techniques around the park (centrally located within the development, elevated above the public path adjoining the Fernleigh Track, and the public path flow angling away from the park), and it is unlikely that anyone unfamiliar with the area will readily identify it as a public park, or feel comfortable using it.”
    Nothing has changed. It is still inappropriate and unusable.
    In a number of submissions presented orally to the JRPP on 23 July 2015, people requested clarification on a number of issues
    • Who will be responsible for the upkeep and ongoing maintenance of the lawns and gardens?
    • Who will be responsible for the playground equipment and picnic tables shown on the plans?
    • Who is responsible for the Pubic Liability Insurance?
    • Is there going to be a fence separating the park from the road?

    The JRPP deferred their determination pending a number of additional information including “Additional details being provided regarding the proposed mechanism to deliver and manage the proposed open space on Lot 25 as publically accessible open space.

    The response by SNL regarding this was totally insufficient. It was a short statement that they intend “to use provisions of the Conveyancing Act 1919,
    and that any alternate provisions to the Conveyancing Act would need to be endorsed by council.”
    This has not answered any of the matters raised.

  3. In Mc Graths Hill NSW on “Place of Public Worship” at 10 Beddek Street, Mcgraths Hill, NSW:

    Vicki West commented

    Why is it that I have just learnt about this proposal this afternoon. The Dead line for objection closes tomorrow at 4pm, as a rate payer of Mc Graths Hill I feel that this should have gone to a public meeting for discussion, as it will be affecting the public of the Hill. And today is the first I have heard about it. Not Happy Council. When I rang the council chambers today I already knew that no one would talk to me. And I was correct, It to a voice mail. (Funny that).

    And it has nothing to do about religion and everything to do about the love and care I take in the Windsor area. I love it here. It's not to build up for my grandchildren. We can still hear the Kookaburras, Magpies and Bell-birds on our walks. Do you really need to fill ever little space of land with a building, whats wrong with having open spaces.

    Further more in saying that, why would you even think of another building been built on that small signal lane street that will only add to the traffic congestion is on that corner is already bad enough, every day for hours at a time.

    I VOTE NO FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT.

    By Vicki

  4. In Pennant Hills NSW on “Unauthorised work -...” at 2 Schofield Parade Pennant Hills NSW 2120:

    Hiro Takeda commented

    My property has a significant impact from this illegal building the owner of 2 Schofield Parade has built.

    My house will not get the sunlight, blocked by the extended building and I have been raising my concerns with Hornsby Shire Council.

    The last update I received from the Council by email was the 9th December 2013 and they said the case was with their Lawyers and they would come back to me once they have heard back from their Lawyers.

    However, that was the last message I have received and haven't received any updates since.

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

    Sylvie Jacobi-McCarthy commented

    The revised plans for this development have not been suitably altered to address the concerns raised by residents from Whitebridge or residents from surrounding suburbs who will also be effected.
    I oppose the development plans for 89 dwellings in Whitebridge. This proposed development would result in a jarring change to density that would have negative repercussions for the whole community, new residents included. The residents of Whitebridge want a development that is of merit to our community.

    Additionally, I have viewed the plans and this development ignores the ecological importance of the green corridor bordering the Fernleigh Track that runs between Glenrock State Conservation Area and the Awabakal Nature Reserve. This is symptomatic of a disregard for the value of this space not only to Whitebridge community, but for the biodiversity of this whole area.

    I understand that the JRPP stipulated certain changes be made in these revised plans and that these have not been adhered to. This alone is enough reason for these plans to be rejected, as they should be.

  6. In Erskineville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 100 Swanson Street Erskineville NSW 2043:

    David H commented

    I have no idea who you are Nicole, but obviously you must be working for the developer or must be benefiting from this ridiculous development proposal.

    It is a ghastly idea to have apartments on the main road of Erskineville right next to heritage terraces. This is an easy see-through trick, name it affordable housing (on the condition that it is only for a limited time) and voila: suddenly 5 years later you have multiple apartments for sale in the heart of Erskineville.

    The developer is so cheeky that his proposal states that he will build no parking and that legally his proposal cannot be refused on the grounds of parking (talk about exploiting legal loopholes!).

    The development has to put back in line with the surrounding houses, no more than 2 levels and respect the privacy of the houses at the sides and back. Obviously, the planned balconies at the back are overlooking multiple backyards and will probably require all the neighbours to put in privacy screens.

    Ashmore Industrial Estate is already poised to bring more houses with little parking and no infrastructure upgrades (i.e. school, parks, roads, etc). Planning Authority has to up its game so that the village feel is protected and the population density requirements are adhered to.

    This proposal may be the one paving the way for apartments to flood the rest of the Railway Parade / Park Street / Swanson Street triangle, so it has to be treated carefully and reconfigured to be a house, not an apartment.

  7. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 44 Frampton Avenue Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Matt Johnson commented

    The Traffic Report states that "Parents dropping off and picking up their children will need to rely on public parking".

    This is a facile statement that does not reflect the reality: There is a high rate of double-parking by parents around schools and childcare facilities*. The report fails to mention what steps the applicant will take to mitigate this.

    Traffic congestion on Frampton Avenue has already been increased by the introduction of 90-degree rear-to-kerb parking, and will be further stressed by parents ignoring the nearby council car parks.

    Introducing "15 minute" or "5 minute" parks outside the facility would put further strain on local parking congestion, and given existing restrictions are not adequately enforced, this would be a nominal concession at best.

    Council's rangers are already overburdened, and I don't see that there are (or should be) sufficient council resources to ensure that parents will conform with the applicant's hopes and desires for orderly conduct.

    Finally, I believe the traffic report may have been taken on a particularly quiet day; parking is far more difficult to find at that time of the morning than they would have you believe.

    For this reason I would ask that the application be rejected, until such time as they can provide adequate drop-off facilities. Perhaps the on-site parking should be replaced with a drop-off zone at the rear?

    kind regards,

    Matt Johnson

    * Along with a wide variety of traffic infringements, as I'm sure the Council's enforcement officers are aware

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

    Natalie Van Dyck commented

    I would like to again object to this over development in the suburb of Whitebridge.

    The development is excessive in height. It is too dense. More open space and environmental considerations should be taken into account.

    This corridor of land is needed to allow animals to have safe passage in an urbane environment.

    The appearance of this development will clash with existing houses and smaller developments in the immediate environment .

    There is not enough parking at the shops and the traffic is congested and dangerous In this area already.

    Parking is needed for Fernleigh track.

  9. In Mc Graths Hill NSW on “Place of Public Worship” at 10 Beddek Street, Mcgraths Hill, NSW:

    Jim commented

    Sounds like the old racist card cloaked in heavy traffic problems.
    Same thing happened at Annangrove years ago. There was a Mosque built and since then no problems and the community seem ok by it.

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

    Mrs. Mearns E. Hall commented

    1st September, 2015 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, Amended Plans
    Address: 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street, Whitebridge. NSW 2290.
    Applicant's Name: SNL Building Constructions Pty. Ltd.
    Dear Sir/Madam,

    Please refer to my previous submissions as all of my concerns (which haven’t been addressed) including concerns stated below, still apply.
    In regards to the amended plans by SNL to council, they do not seem to have addressed even the first concerns by the community. I am still very concerned there is still only one exit/entry point in the subdivision by vehicles on Kopa Street. I am concerned still about the corner of Lonus Ave. and Kopa St., where I live, as the traffic will bottlenecked further, especially when Whitebridge High School is starting and finishing. It’s dangerous enough now.

    Most of the original concerns about the development are still there. No need to go over them again. They are in the first two submissions I wrote.

    One issue I have is SNL wanting to build a driveway and two parking spaces for Lot 23 dwelling on Council land. I would much prefer Kopa Street to be extended to the Twenty metre conservation boundary so that Lot 1,(vacant lot below Lot 3) North side of Kopa St. and SNL land, South side of Kopa St. equally have driveway access to the land.

    The environmental zone has a road carriageway, footpath and stormwater basins situated on it as well. How is a green corridor between Glenrock State Park and adjoining bushland expected to regenerate/rejuvenate when building is allowed in this zone. The residential zone should have these facilities not the environmental zone, which is also an asset protection zone for bush fires protection which means limited planting of flora in this area.

    The size of this development needs to be halved and kept within height limits.

    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. M. E. Hall

  11. In Parkville VIC on “Melbourne planning scheme...” at Royal Childrens Hospital 48-50 Flemington Road Parkville VIC 3052:

    Helena J. Bishop commented

    There should not be alcohol available inside the building or near the outside of the Childrens' Hospital.

    There is a hotel inside, but that is separated from most of the main building, however there is still a childcare centre just across the corridor from the eastern entrance.

    If the alcohol is served in the hotel on floors higher than ground level and it is stopped from going any lower unless in sealed/stoppered containers then that would be less of a problem, but it would still be better if it did not happen at all.

    The original reason that the hotel made it into the original planning was to make it easier for relatives to stay nearby the patients not as a normal hotel.

    Elsewhere there should not be alcohol available.

    Alcohol with or without a meal is freely available within reasonable walking distance in
    North Melbourne, Carlton (Lygon Street) and Parkville as well as the C.B.D. a very short tram ride away or walk away.

    The possibility of over imbibed people wandering around the building where there are sick children, relatives, visitors including other children beggars belief.

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

    Margaret Mcdougall commented

    21/120 Redhead Rd
    Redhead, NSW, 2290
    1/09/2015

    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.

    Please refer to my previous submissions as all of my concerns (which haven’t been addressed) including concerns stated below, still apply.

    The build height of almost 14 m is completely out of context with the surrounding 2 storey design of new buildings.

    Staging of the developement raises concerns over noise pollution, increased traffic congestion. After reading SNL report their comment ” we will get used to the buildings and the trees will eventually camouflage them” is a ludicrous patronizing statement and unacceptable.

    This ’Developement ’ should it go ahead will undoubtedly set a precedent in similar zoned areas which is not the desired future that the majority of residents want. The density of 91 units is not consistent with the LEP 2014 planning at the time of rezoning.

    The environmental zone has a road carriageway, footpath and stormwater basins situated on it as well. How is a green corridor between Glenrock State Park and adjoining bushland expected to regenerate/rejuvenate when building is allowed in this zone. The residential zone should have these facilities not the environmental zone, which is also an asset protection zone for bush fires protection which means limited planting of flora in this area.

    This new proposal ignores the ecological importance of the green corridor connecting Glenrock State Consevation Area and the Awabakal Nature Reserve.

    Kopa St has the only egress for vehicles from the 91 dwellings. One issue I have is SNL wanting to build a driveway and two parking spaces for Lot 23 dwelling on Council land. I would much prefer Kopa Street to be extended to the Twenty metre conservation boundary so that Lot 1,(vacant lot below Lot 3) North side of Kopa St. and SNL land, South side of Kopa St. equally have driveway access to the land.

    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. Please do not acceopt this DA in its current form.

    Thank You.

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

    Keith Kolisnyk commented

    11 Goulbourn Street
    Dudley, 2290
    1/09/2015

    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

    Please refer to my previous submissions as all of my concerns (which haven’t been addressed) including concerns stated below, still apply.

    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 87 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.

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

    John Mcdougall commented

    21/120 Redhead Rd
    Redhead, NSW, 2290
    1/09/2015

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

    John Mcdougall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thank you.

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

    Greg Boundy commented

    21 Railway Street
    Dudley, 2290
    1/09/2015

    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

    As most of my previous concerns in my last two submissions, which are still relevant, have not been addressed, there is no need to go over them again. The following concerns are additional:

    TRAFFIC

    As there are no indications of any road upgrades to the current road system i fail to see how the gridlock situation will get better! Council’s response seems to bolster SNL’s study, how is this so? Why wasnt an independant study performed?

    There might be 3 more commercial shops along Dudley Rd. Will this ease congestion? Parking on Dudley Rd is already difficult. There is the potential for hundreds of extra cars generated from this DA. I find this totally unacceptable.
    The obvious outcome of this is increased danger to cyclists, road users and pedestrians.

    SNL do not take the knowledge of the residents on board nor do they take into account the nature of the area, preschool, shops, church, services and an increasing pedestrian/cycle zone.

    The increased traffic will also generate more fine particulate and Co2 during construction and in the future, again not acceptable. Go back to the drawing board.

    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

    Changes to the environmental zone now include an encroachment by over 6m of a road carriageway, footpath and 3 stormwater basins. The green corridor between Glenrock State Park and adjoining bushland will be severely depleted when building is allowed in this zone. The residential zone should have these facilities not the environmental zone, which is also an asset protection zone for bush fires protection which means limited planting of flora in this area, further compounding the regeneration issues.

    This new proposal ignores the ecological importance of the green corridor connecting Glenrock State Consevation Area and the Awabakal Nature Reserve.

    Issues regarding storm water runoff onto Fernleigh Track and the potential for degredation of the Glenrock watershed have not been fully addressed, not good enough!

    SOCIAL IMPACT

    SNL’s mandate seems to be one of total disregard for the community in large, so much for ’community consultation’. Their remark of the proposal ’being consistent with the emerging character of Whitebridge’ is utter nonsense and spin generated by underlings doing the bidding of magnates. The majority of residents have no desire for ’their’ vision of the future. 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.

    BUILDING DESIGN

    With the developement being staged over 2-3 yrs this will only contribute to increased noise levels, traffic congestion and possibly pollution from construction runoff.

    After reading SNL report their comment ” we will get used to the buildings and the trees will eventually camouflage them” is a ludicrous patronizing statement and unacceptable.

    In SNL’s VIA they’ve shown trees along Dudley Rd. That A) are too high B)don’t exist on the landscape plan C) positioned in parking areas!! This makes a complete mockery of their assertions. SNL’s own remarks state
    ” There are four viewpoints where the impact has been assessed as severe”. Their proposed 2-4 storey bulky and imposing structures will be devestating from most views. This again is not WORLD CLASS DESIGN , only a developer wishing to Maximize his Yield.

    There will also be a private driveway built at the end of Kopa St. For Unit 23! What happens to the residence’s on the north side of Kopa St if they need a road entrance in the future? Why should the developer get preliminary say when it involves a public throughfare? Seems money talks!

    This ’Developement ’ should it go ahead will undoubtedly set a precedent in similar zoned areas which is not the desired future that the majority of residents want. The density of 91 dwellings and 3 commercial units is not consistent with the LEP 2014 planning at the time of rezoning. 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. I urge the Council and JRPP to use common sense in their approach and ask the Developement be redesigned to 40 dwellings.

    Thank You.

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

    Douglas Kolisnyk commented

    Doug Kolisnyk
    10 Hudson Street
    Whitebridge 2290
    1/09/2015
    Lake Macquarie City Council
    The General Manager
    PO Box 1906
    Hunter Region Mail Centre 2310

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

    As the community’s concerns, and now the JRPP’s directives, have not been addressed, I would like to resubmit my previous submission. The developer’s lack of compliance and lack of respect for the decision of the deciding body, the JRPP, should result in the rejection of this DA.
    I have been a resident of Whitebridge for 25 years, I wish to register my opposition to the proposed development at 142-146 Dudley Rd and 2-4 Kopa St, Whitebridge.
    I have referred to the proposal’s Visual Impact Assessment (VIA), MSB-Conditional Approval, SNL’s DA Documents. REFERRAL RESPONSE IP – Strategic Planning.
    My concerns regarding this development are stated in my previous submissions. The following addendum highlights further concerns:
    SOCIAL IMPACT:
    The East Lake Intensification Corridor illustrated in a schematic map in the Lifestyle 2030 document shows the corridor along the highway from Charlestown to Belmont. Whitebridge is on the periphery of the zone. Council state there is no detailed map of the Zone which SNL greatly rely on in their final version of this DA. Therefore SNL’s use of this zone should be reinvestigated or dismissed.

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

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

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

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

    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    TRAFFIC IMPACT:

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

    Existing infrastructure such as roads, car parking, pre-schools are at capacity and will not cope efficiently with the sudden and concentrated increase in population and traffic, despite assurances to the contrary provided by the developer. The suburb is poorly serviced by Government buses and no anticipated change in service has been suggested. People will need to travel to Charlestown for many services including banking, the post office, medical specialists etc. Charlestown the nearest transport hub is at least a 30 minute walk from this site. .
    Conclusion:
    I respectfully request, that both Council and the JRPP reject the application as offered and suggest a significant downsizing of the proposal to accord with the initial projection of 40 dwellings at the time this land was rezoned.
    Integrate the development into the community and scale back to a density which can be accommodated into the environment and supporting infrastructures of our neighbourhood centre.
    I further suggest the need for integrity and quality in the design of the development and the reinstatement of permeability through the site to maintain the historic and public interest in this land.

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

    Carmen Kolisnyk commented

    1th September, 2015 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 most of my previous concerns in my last two submissions, which are still relevant, have not been addressed, there is no need to go over them again. The following concerns are in addendum:
    TRAFFIC IMPACT

    No plans for any road upgrades to the current road system indicates an increase in the gridlock situation our area is feeling now! Will it get better!? I doubt it! Council’s response seems to indicate a reluctance to listen to the broader community. An independent study needs to be performed.
    There might be 3 more commercial shops along Dudley Rd. Will this ease congestion? Parking on Dudley Rd is already dangerous at intermittent times. There is the potential for hundreds of extra cars generated from this DA and the obvious outcome of this is increased danger to cyclists, road users and pedestrians. This is avoidable and inexcusable.
    ‘Community consultation’ by SNL do not take into account local knowledge of the residents nor do they take into account the existing nature of the area, preschool, shops, church, services and an increasing pedestrian/cycle zone.

    SOCIAL IMPACT

    IP, Integrated Planning, advise that the proposed density is 42 dwelling per hectare and this is higher than that suggested (30-40) for the regional centre of Charlestown. Whitebridge has one of the highest rates of Development in Lake Macquarie now. If the initial proposal was more appropriate with the surrounding area it should be possible to increase the supply of housing in the area by developing this site without excessive development.
    This ’Development’ if accepted will undoubtedly create a precedent in similar zoned areas which is not what the majority of residents want. A density, of 91 dwellings and 3 commercial units is not consistent with the LEP 2014 planning at the time of rezoning, which stated an approx. max. of 40 dwellings for the site. As it stands the development is undesirable and inappropriate/unsustainable. It detracts rather than adds to our neighbourhood.
    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

    The environmental zone now has a road carriageway, footpath and stormwater basins designed into it. The encroachment into this zone decreases the green corridors ability to rejuvenate. The residential zone needs to be scaled back to a reasonable density.

    The amount of permeable land on the site has been drastically reduced and in the event of a 100 yr. storm surge or the like I would be greatly concerned with storm water discharge onto Fernleigh Track which has the potential to pollute and degrade the Glenrock watershed. With climate change upon us has this been taken into account?

    This is unacceptable at a Community level and is totally contrary to the intentions set forth in the rezoning at Amendment 53 and in the Objectives for this zone under the LEP.

    BUILDING DESIGN

    With the staging of the development a 2-3 yr. time limit is unacceptable and will lead to further noise aggravation and traffic chaos.

    The bulky and aggressive nature of the build design is unavoidable wherever you look. The 14m height along Dudley Rd is a travesty, SNL have exceeded the allowable distance by almost 3m.

    The private driveway off Kopa St for unit 23 leaves no room for additional am driveway on the north side of Kopa st under lot 3. How can this be justified?

    Progress is necessary for any community to advance and grow - but this ‘progress’ should
    never be at the expense of the existing community. I urge the LMCC and the JRPP to please uphold the communities needs and wishes, this is our life and community you’re playing with.

    Yours Sincerely
    Carmen Kolisnyk

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

    Jane Kerrigan commented

    (I have tried to be polite, concise and to the point. I am frustrated that I am writing yet again. Please also refer to my previous correspondences)

    I object.

    I object for a number of different reasons.

    Firstly, because I am being made to state my reasons, for the fourth? time. Why hasn't anyone taken my previous reasons seriously? I gave my thoughts deliberation, discussed them with others and thought them reasonable. Obviously, they were dismissed because I am, yet again, trying to convey the frustration I have with the unreal nature of this project.

    Again, I agree that some sort of development for this site is a good idea.

    And again, I disagree. The density proposed is ludicrous.

    What is the break down of residences of 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom, 3 bedroom, 4 bedroom, 4 bedroom plus a study? NO ONE has answered this question. The team including the Developer and Architect have admitted they have no control over who buys into the development or for what purpose - This is out of their control - owner occupier or rental/ investment, or even on behalf of the government for public housing.

    I'm not a real estate agent, but I can guarantee that 4 person families needing a home require a minimum of 3 bedrooms. I have 2 children and a 2 bedroom home - in a free standing residence....it's barely tolerable. Shunt 87 families into this development and it will be all out war. Especially when they become teenagers.

    Oh, you may say I'm being naive or supercilious making that statement....it won't all be families...and why is that? Because families can't live in one bed apartments, two bed apartments....mix it with rental public housing families, teenagers, middle aged folk with social problems...the picture just gets better.

    The Project (shall we call it) was initiated with a cut and paste, paste, paste, paste, paste, paste, paste, paste design....no thought, no consideration. It wasn't until the Developer was required to engage an architect that any actual element of design was included, no matter how poor and evasive.

    Then the marvellous billboard appeared, advising the community that Hilton had already paid off the NSW Government, so it was a done deal.

    "The Architect" was brought on board, after it was floated through council with flimsy square metrages and dodgy landscaping.

    "The Architect" with his "local credentials" of being brought up somewhere in the "way out west of Newcastle near the expressway prior to BHP leaving", has an opinion on what is good for Whitebridge in 2015 and the next 200 years to follow. Paid for by the Developer, an Architect can have many opinions.

    The merits of The Project were assessed by a reduced number of players in the JRP Panel...One member is personally affiliated with an Architectural/ Development Company within the Hunter Valley, and must feel the pain of the Developer acutely. Why would he make it difficult for any other Developer, when his own company is likely to suffer the same scrutiny?

    The Developer used as part of his justification to keep ploughing on, the observation that there are ever diminishing objections to The Project, so therefore, people must now be in agreement.

    Let it be known, that the original objections still stand! NO ONE has changed their mind. Intelligent people are assuming that intelligent people are assessing the impact this project will have. If the objection has been made, it still stands.

    It's not only the need to keep reminding all and sundry of the failings of this project which is making people weary. It is the constant incredulity felt that a total stranger to the area can lumber on in and overlay his or her 'vision' for the area. With money as his justification.

    In Winston Hills, in the suburban north west of Sydney, the JRPP has knocked a development on the head because it is not inkeeping with the local character of the area. The development proposed is smaller than the Whitebridge proposal, in an area more densely inhabited, with heavier traffic. WHERE IS THE CONSISTENCY?

    The proposed development for Whitebridge is Wrong, Wrong, Wrong for the site, the amenity, the environmental effect, the lack of good and proper engineering, the lack of good and proper architecture. The JRPP should be ashamed of their flimsy list of grievances.

    Cut it back, make it work. We are a small neighbourhood, not a Town Centre or a Hub, or whatever other fancy nomenclature you choose. There are no services to support an additional 87 'families', 180 cars etc.

    THIS IS WRONG. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? I OBJECT.

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

    Kylie Pheils commented

    I restate all my previous objections to this development in its current form and emphasize once again that this is NOT an appropriate development for this suburb, and nor will it be even in 20 years. This parcel of land is too big to develop in this manner, as it will never gel with the rest of the suburb. The blatant disregard of the developer for the rulings of the JRPP is indicative of the lack of respect they have shown the community during this process. This DA must now be rejected.

    The height along Dudley Rd of 16 metres, 4-storeys, is entirely in opposition to the village atmosphere of Whitebridge, not to mention being well above the height limits as stipulated by LMCC. It will lessen the experience of shopping and frequenting the cafés on the shopping strip.
    The number of dwellings is entirely too high and indicates an opportunistic attitude on behalf of the developer. LMCC indicated the land was appropriate for 40-50 dwellings (even less considering that took into account land on the other side of Kopa Street) and the community agrees with this figure as being appropriate.
    Using the environmental corridor to achieve permeability of the site is a perfect example of the lack of good intention on the part of the developer.
    This development must be suitable for the area and enhance the suburb. Currently, Whitebridge is at risk of becoming a suburb of social unrest and discontent.
    To allow this development to go ahead would be irresponsible and would demonstrate that our council and decision makers are not responding to the community, but only to the developer's commercial interests as it is certainly not in the interests of the suburb of Whitebridge.

    Kylie Pheils

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

    Kylie Pheils commented

    I hereby resubmit my prior submissions. The public is not being heard, experts are not being heard and now the JRPP is not being heard. This DA should not be approved.
    The height along Dudley Rd of 16 metres, 4-storeys, is entirely in opposition to the village atmosphere of Whitebridge, not to mention being well above the height limits as stipulated by LMCC. It will lessen the experience of shopping and frequenting the cafés on the shopping strip.
    The number of dwellings is entirely too high and indicates an opportunistic attitude on behalf of the developer. LMCC indicated the land was appropriate for 40-50 dwellings (even less considering that took into account land on the other side of Kopa Street) and the community agrees with this figure as being appropriate.
    Using the environmental corridor to achieve permeability of the site is a perfect example of the lack of good intention on the part of the developer.
    This development must be suitable for the area and enhance the suburb. Currently, Whitebridge is at risk of becoming a suburb of social unrest and discontent.
    To allow this development to go ahead would be irresponsible and would demonstrate that our council and decision makers are not responding to the community, but only to the developer's commercial interests as it is certainly not in the interests of the suburb of Whitebridge.
    regards
    Kylie Pheils

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

    Leigh Donegan commented

    To whom it may concern, RE: DA 1774/2013

    I would like to resubmit my previous submissions, objecting to this development application.

    I am a resident of Whitebridge, myself and my young family’s property backs onto the Fernleigh track about 100m from this proposed development site.
    We frequently use the Whitebridge shop area and our children attend the local school.
    We are deeply concerned about the density of this development and the ability for the local infrastructure to cope.
    We understand that this land needs to be developed, but the number of dwellings and the building heights proposed for this site would certainly make it inconsistent with the surrounding area.
    My understanding is that the density of this development is not consistent with what LMCC planned when they rezoned this land.
    I believe the development storm water facilities and roads should not intrude into the conservation land. The conservation land is there for a reason.
    Users of the Fernleigh track need to be able to access the Whitebridge Shops in a safe manner without having to cross the narrow bridge and busy roads.
    It’s often very difficult to get a park at the Whitebridge shops and this often causes the roundabout to come to a standstill as people are waiting for parks. If this development is to go ahead in its current form I'm concerned the shop area will be used as overflow for resident parking due to the large number of proposed dwellings, not to mention the extra traffic trying to access the shops via the single entry causing more bottle necks at the roundabout.
    One way in and one way out via Kopa St for 91 dwellings onto an already congested road is going to further compound the problem at the roundabout as mentioned in the above paragraph.

    Kind Regards,

    Leigh Donegan

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

    Brenda Carter commented

    The trivial adjustments to the proposed over-development for Whitebridge do not go anywhere near to satisfying the community concerns about density and traffic.
    Whitebridge is more of a village with a handful of shops, than it is a fully-fledged town and to refer to the development as being proposed in the context of a “town centre” and to compare it to development in the Charlestown CBD seems disingenuous and is grossly misleading.
    The developer acknowledges their proposed development would be out of character for the area but excuses it on the grounds that it would mark a “beachhead,” or more appropriately a “bridgehead,” or some such term, for future development in the area.
    Who says developers get to decide what is best for an area? Who says council guidelines, recommendations, and community expressions of interest are so irrelevant that land can be purchased on the insolent assumption that they can be over-ridden and zoning changed to suit developers? Is town planning being privatised?
    I will not go so far as to allege this particular over-development is tainted with corruption, but in the context of the ongoing ICAC’s revelations (Operation Spicer) , and the persons named there (including the principal developer in this case), I will say it is not a good look.
    Any development on the site should be limited to about forty dwellings, in keeping with the area.

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

    Philip Carter commented

    The trivial adjustments to the proposed over-development for Whitebridge do not go anywhere near to satisfying the community concerns about density and traffic.
    Whitebridge is more of a village with a handful of shops, than it is a fully-fledged town and to refer to the development as being proposed in the context of a “town centre” and to compare it to development in the Charlestown CBD seems disingenuous and is grossly misleading.
    The developer acknowledges their proposed development would be out of character for the area but excuses it on the grounds that it would mark a “beachhead,” or more appropriately a “bridgehead,” or some such term, for future development in the area.
    Who says developers get to decide what is best for an area? Who says council guidelines, recommendations, and community expressions of interest are so irrelevant that land can be purchased on the insolent assumption that they can be over-ridden and zoning changed to suit developers? Is town planning being privatised?
    I will not go so far as to allege this particular over-development is tainted with corruption, but in the context of the ongoing ICAC’s revelations (Operation Spicer) , and the persons named there (including the principal developer in this case), I will say it is not a good look.
    Any development on the site should be limited to about forty dwellings, in keeping with the area.

  24. In Mc Graths Hill NSW on “Place of Public Worship” at 10 Beddek Street, Mcgraths Hill, NSW:

    Deborah Perry commented

    How can such a building, temple or other, even be considered between a historical graveyard and a historical building. It is disrespectful to the surrounding areas. Surely there is a larger alotment of land elsewhere that would be better suited, away from such a historical area. How sad that the developers have little respect for the immediate surroundings. And how sad if Council lets such a development destroy the status of the area.
    This is not about religion. This is about developing an area in an inappropriate way that will take away from it's former heritage.
    And on another point, how will the tiny streets surrounding that area cope with additional traffic flow? I see one-way streets in that area and narrow private streets where a parked car on the side of the road plays havoc with passing vehicles.
    And then comes the McGraths Hill to Windsor congestion as it already stands.
    As mentioned, obviously the developers have little respect for the area, or perhaps they have absolutely no idea of the area in the first place.
    I do not support this DA.

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

    Laurie Mascord commented

    Re: DA/1774/2013

    I wish to once again object to this DA. Non-compliance with JRPP conditions and with LMCC planning guidelines must render this proposal unfit for approval.

    Objectives for land zoned 7(2) Conservation have not been met, and in fact, hugely infringed upon, and yet this infringement has not been addressed. The expert opinion regarding the seven-part-test for native fauna, as expressed to the JRPP, has not resulted in a precautionary approach being taken, even though this could easily be achieved. Infrastructure needed to support this number of new dwellings has not been considered or planned for. This will result in reduced safety for pedestrians, especially considering there is already a lack of suitable footpaths in the suburb, which deters people from walking and results in people driving the short distances. The height of the development is still excessive for the suburb, considering the number dwellings concentrated in the one area. The negative visual impact from the Fernleigh Track has not been addressed. The unnecessary removal of trees is a disgrace.

    It concerns and confuses me that our local council is so willing to accept so many non-compliances with their own planning guidelines. I would also like to point out that a reduction in submissions from the public after each new plan submitted by the developer DOES NOT indicate acceptance, but an understandable loss of motivation to keep up the fight when it is going on for so long, when people are so busy in their lives, and when there is little indication of the public's concerns being heard.

    This DA must be rejected in its current form.

    I attach below my previous submission to reiterate the issues that have still not been addressed.

    I wish to object to the current development proposal. It is entirely inappropriate for a NEIGHBOURHOOD centre, which is the classification of Whitebridge as assigned by LMCC.
    This DA reflects the guidelines for development in a REGIONAL centre.
    Density and Design/
    With a proposed 91 dwellings, this is a gross and opportunistic over-development of the site. SNL are proposing 54 dwellings per hectare, whereas LMCC Lifestyle 2030 stipulate 30-40 dwellings per hectare.
    The 7(2) conservation land should be excluded from any calculation. This type of development is entirely out of sync with a suburb of majority single-family housing.
    Section 2.7 of the Lake Macquarie City Council Development Control Plan No. 1 “deals with the need for development to respond to the Local Context by identifying desirable elements of its existing character that will contribute to the future character of an area.”
    (page 1) The proposed development does not incorporate any of the ‘desirable elements’ of Whitebridge, nor does it reflect its ‘existing character’.
    Environmental Impact/
    The 7(2) land should also remain independent from pathways enabling permeability through the site. The ecological corridor must be respected as important and irreplaceable for flora and fauna and should in no way be impacted by any development.
    Social Impact/ In their report on Increasing Density in Australia (2012), Giles-Corti, Ryan and Foster explain how environmental criminologists assert that safe neighbourhoods are characterised by greater land-use homogeneity, with less mixed-use development and more single-family housing. The proposed development is in opposition to these characteristics of safe neighbourhoods. Aestethically, the proposed development is imposing, shocking and unbefitting, not only for residents and shoppers, but for recreation-makers on the Fernleigh Track, which is one of the jewels in the crown of
    Newcastle and Lake Macquarie. The visual and atmospherical contrast between Whitebridge and the rest of the experience on the Fernleigh Track would be shameful.
    The request that developer’s contribution s94 be waived is unjustified. The ’urban space’ proposed on Dudley Rd is not something that was requested by, or even desired by,
    the community, due to its strong potential for anti-social behaviour. When one takes in
    to account the developer’s plan to use public land for parts of the project (Dudley Rd for the ’urban space’ and Kopa St for private driveway to Lot 23), this request becomes
    not only ’cheeky’, but blatantly disrespectful. Safety and Traffic Problems/
    A single entry/exit point, that being Kopa Street, for 92 dwellings will clearly cause tremendous changes in traffic conditions not only in Kopa Street, but on Lonus Avenue, and the roundabout via which most drivers access Lonus Avenue. The adjacent park, which is used regularly, the tennis courts and the oval will become much less-pleasant places to frequent. This will break down community ties. The traffic along Lonus Avenue will also put families of the Birralee Long Day Care Centre at risk. Students accessing
    Whitebridge High School by foot along Lonus will be placed in greater danger, and families accessing Whitebridge Preschool in Tumpoa Street will be negatively affected. It
    is already difficult and sometimes dangerous for buses using Lonus Ave to access the high school. Traffic along Dudley Rd will inevitably increase, which will increase the likli
    hood of accidents for people attempting to turn onto this road from side-streets. It is
    already hazardous to do so, as is it hazardous to walk the streets of Whitebridge, particularly when attempting to cross Dudley Rd. Considering the current
    insurge of young families, this is in opposition to the desired character of the area.
    General/
    IF this development is approved, a precedent will be set for land of this zoning to be developed in a similarly careless manner, thus putting more of our suburbs at risk of disaffection. Within Whitebridge, there exists massive potential for dramatic increases in density, due to the zoning of land on Kopa Street and Lonus Avenue. In other words, these problems have the potential to become even bigger. A careful, predictive view is needed to ensure this suburb grows at a manageable rate. The community of Whitebridge and surrounding suburbs have clearly, confidently and justifiably stated
    their lack of support for this project. This must have weight against the self-gratifying intentions of a developer. Residents have communicated an understanding and acceptance of the inevitability of the site being developed; it is the nature of this development which is being rejected. An appropriate development which adds value to the community and which reflects the spirit and regulations of the governing council
    would be embraced.
    Laurie Mascord

  26. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Construction of Buildings...” at 383 Tooronga Road Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    wendy john commented

    I couldn't agree more with the previous comment. Car parking spaces should not be reduced.
    This is occurring in too many developments, most of which are already inappropriate in size and lack consideration of environmental factors; particularly adequate green space.
    Reduced car parking is just another negative impact on traffic and nearby residents.
    When will councils stand up to developers?

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

    Maree Turner commented

    This continuous back and forth of submission writing is unbelievable. Minor adjustments to the original submission have been made however; the communities concerns have again been ignored. The original issues still exist.

    We are expecting our third child in November and will be continuing to walk to and from Whitebridge Preschool, Tumpoa Street and also Charlestown East Primary School next year. The current traffic congestion is difficult to navigate through and previously I had been timing my walks to preschool so I could cross the road safely with my two children. However, next year my son will be starting primary school which means that I will now become part of peak hour school traffic. I find it very hard to comprehend the impact this development will have on local crossings, footpaths and roads. I fear an accident will happen.

    The current form of the application still poses the same concerns and threats regarding environmental impact, pedestrian safety and overload of utilities. It is disappointing to witness the developer’s lack of compliance with conditions that were set by the JRPP. How many chances do the developers get? It’s a shame that the community and developers cannot work together to create a suitable application that can seriously be considered.

    I plan to be a resident of the Whitebridge community for a long time and raise my young family in this area. This complete disregard for community collaboration is disappointing. I hope my concerns and the broader communities can finally be considered.

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

    Jill Mascord commented

    In light of the latest plan submitted by the developer, this DA must be entirely rejected due to non-compliance with JRPP conditions. This developer is wasting everyone’s time. Whilst it is important they make a profit, this cannot be at the cost of all other considerations. The environment, and the community, present and future, must factor equally when developing this land. I reiterate all of my previous objections as outlined in my 3 previous submissions as these concerns have not been addressed.

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

    Jill Mascord

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

    Sarah Blatchford commented

    Dear Sir/Madam

    I wish to lodge an objection to the proposed development at Whitebridge (DA 1772-2013). I grew up in Whitebridge and still live in nearby Charlestown East (my parents still reside in Whitebridge). I regularly shop at the Whitebridge shops, use the Fernleigh Track, take my children to the Whitebridge park and visit family and friends in the area.

    The developer has clearly NOT adhered to any of the recommendations detailed by the JRPP.

    The excessive height of the dwellings does not integrate with the surrounding area or the desired future for Whitebridge.

    The excessive density is completely unsuitable to this small, quiet suburb. This will inevitably cause a variety of problems in this community - including the social impact, traffic dangers, environmental issues and the negative visual impact.

    The shopping area is already overcrowded and dangerous. The development does not provide adequate additional car parking. The addition of so many vehicles to the shopping area, roundabout and busy Kopa Street is dangerous. Based on the hundreds of complaints made by actual residents who live in the area, LMCC's traffic assessment is clearly wrong. The ongoing dangers to pedestrians in this small area are massive.

    It is well documented that areas housing highly dense dwellings suffer from higher crime rates, vandalism, and social problems. These dwellings have no yards, parks, personal space or areas for socialising. Residents, especially youths, will have no space to spend their time outdoors aside from the street and public areas.
    Whitebridge is a small suburb and, as such, has the amenities to cope with a small population. This over development would suit a larger suburb that has the transport, recreational activities, and services to cope.

    This development has been planned with no green space, aside from the mandatory corridor alongside the Fernleigh track. The conservation corrider is minimal and houses a storm water drain and other facilities. This is completely unacceptable for this bushland setting. This lack of green space is in complete contradiction to the bushy surrounds of the area, will radiate an enormous amount of heat, and will be an eyesore to the neighbourhood. These dwellings need to be built with personal green space for each residence and green space separating the dwellings. Ideally there should be communal space as well, such as a decent park or playground.

    Quantity over quality appears to have been a determining phrase during the planning of this development, however Whitebridge is a wonderful place to live and visit and is deserving of a development that will harmonise with the existing community and environment.

    I am disheartened that our local council has not acted in the best interests of the area or the community and I ask that the JRPP reject this DA and demand something of substance.

    I sincerely hope that these issues are taken into consideration,
    Sarah Blatchford

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

    Nathan Tutton commented

    I strongly object to the development of Kopa Street/Dudley Road in its current form, as I have done 3 times previously, yet still the developer has not heard, or not listened. Now they have demonstrated they will not listen to the determining body, the JRPP, either. I sincerely hope that the JRPP does not become worn down by this developer, as I suspect is their intention. I would also like to add that, if there are less submissions this time, it is not due to an acceptance by the community of the new plan, but merely the natural loss in energy to continue fighting such a ’Goliath’ - people have jobs, family, houses and limited time. For the developers, this IS their job. Please, reject this development application.

    It is extremely disappointing and unfortunate that the most concerning issues highlighted by the community have not been addressed and that the development is still in this entirely unsatisfactory from.
    Traffic congestion will be a significant problem, especially along Lonus Avenue
    and at the roundabout, and especially during school drop-off and pick-up times, where there are already long delays.
    It seems very unreasonable that the only proposed entry and exit points for a
    development of that size is via Kopa Street, which links to Lonus Avenue, and Lonus
    Avenue is the street used for Whitebridge High School, Whitebridge Preschool in Tumpoa Street AND Birralee Long Day Care Centre. All of these also link to the roundabout.
    I feel very concerned about even walking with my one-year old daughter to the park if this development was to go ahead, and, in the future, walking to the preschool with the need to cross and walk along these roads if that level of traffic will be present. This seems very out-of-character to have this level of traffic attempting to move around a suburb.
    Additionally, it is already becoming very difficult at times, and dangerous, to turn from Station Street, where I live, on to Dudley Road due to the traffic passing though on its way to Redhead and Dudley. This will only worsen if the development attempting to
    accommodate such a high number of people was to go ahead.
    Dropping into the shops on your way home from work will become a thing of the past, as parking problems will inevitably arise as current parking places, of which there are already too few, will be taken over for the development. This will also place more pressure, traffic and congestion onto Dudley Road as people attempt to find parks there instead.
    The Fernleigh Track will also be affected, as it will lose a lot of its beauty and tranquility at this Whitebridge stop and will discourage cyclists, walkers and joggers from making Whitebridge shops and cafes their destination. This will adversley affect businesses in the area. The buildings need to be set way further back so as to not impose upon the experience of the Track.
    Finally, this development will look very unattractive and will not match its surroundings. It has the potential to become the embarrassment of Whitebridge, which will become known for its out-of-place development rather than for its pleasant, community vibe.
    I urge the deciding bodies to use common sense and forward thinking to ensure that
    the developer is made to consider the greater good and not purely profit from this amazing opportunity to develop the suburb of Whitebridge. Current and future residents deserve to be protected and considered to ensure a precedent is set that encourages quality and positive development of our area.

    Nathan Tutton

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