Recent comments

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

    Phillip Geary commented

    I am an academic at the University of Newcastle and also a resident of Lake Macquarie City, I am making this submission as I oppose the above development in its current form.

    As an academic I have taught environmental planning for over 10 years in the Bachelor of Environmental Science degree and am familiar with the regulations governing land use and development in NSW. I am sure Council is aware of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (1979) in that it must determine a development application by taking into consideration many different matter such as the suitability of the site for the development, and of course the public interest. I understand that in this particular case the consent authority is the Joint Regional Planning Panel so I strongly recommend that the Council oppose the development in its representations to the JRPP.

    As a resident of Dudley and frequent user of the Whitebridge shopping area, I would like to add that Council has already done a particularly poor job in guiding the current form of the shopping centre. There are significant traffic problems in the morning and afternoon usually associated with the traffic along Lonus Avenue from Whitebridge High School. The expansion in the last few years to the northern side of Burwood Road has exacerbated these problems. Traffic parking and pedestrians crossing there have been made worse by Council’s short-sighted decision to allow traffic to enter this area from the roundabout. Without any further approved development at Whitebridge, there is a need to review the current arrangements at the shopping centre to deal with improving the existing traffic management situation.

    Given the nature of the obvious problems associated with the current developments there, it therefore is incomprehensible that Council could consider the current application in its current form. The proposal to allow 87 medium density houses and four commercial units on what is actually a small parcel of land is a clear overdevelopment of the site. I understand from the plans that access is to be solely from Kopa Street to Lonus Avenue so the addition of hundreds more vehicles to the local road network in the morning and evening will result in traffic congestion and further parking problems. I would anticipate further pedestrian injuries at the shopping centre crossing, as well as vehicle accidents associated with them leaving the roundabout to enter the inadequate shopping centre parking area.

    What is proposed is an overdevelopment of the site and is not appropriate given the land available and the surrounding existing residential and commercial development at Whitebridge. It is just simply an example of bad planning. Whitebridge shopping centre is already an example of bad planning with piecemeal development and sloppy traffic solutions for the local community. Another larger ill-conceived development as proposed would result in the traffic management issues already mentioned. On the basis of what is proposed the development DA number: 1774/2013 should not be approved,

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

    David Gleadhill commented

    SUBMISSION regarding PLANNING PROPOSAL for WHITEBRIDGE NSW
    DA number: 1774/2013
    Address: 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street WHITEBRIDGE NSW 2290
    Applicant: SNL Building Construction Pty Ltd
    08 February 2014

    Density:
    The proposed development is for medium to high density accommodation, which is contrary to almost all existing developments in this suburb. The existing low-density developments give Whitebridge its unique character, and provides a distinction from existing high-density developments well established, for example, in nearby Charlestown, a favoured area for businesses, shopping and apartment-style living. These suburbs complement each other well, not only by their contrasting and distinct characters but by their proximity.
    The proposed development is close to the protected Awabakal Bush, Glen Rock Park, the popular Fernleigh Track and the unspoilt Dudley Beach, and the density of this development would be in very stark contrast to the character of these amenities, currently enjoyed by not only local residents but also those from outside the immediate area.

    Traffic Congestion and Parking Problems:
    Whitebridge already has moderate to heavy traffic congestion at times, especially at the start and end of office hours, and at school times. Congestion would be very significantly and adversely affected by the proposed development. This would be particularly evident at the Whitebridge roundabout, where there are periods of high pedestrian activity.
    Whitebridge shopping area has had a recent upgrade, with new and additional parking, as well as a one-way traffic system, but this is already highly congested at times and can be unsafe for drivers and pedestrians. The proposed development would greatly exacerbate these issues, and would have a negative impact on parking throughout the Whitebridge area.

    Safety:
    Safety for vehicle users and pedestrians would be greatly compromised by the proposed development. The roads around the area in question are busy, and some (especially those around Whitebridge roundabout) are relatively narrow, with limited visual access at certain locations. There are two pedestrian crossings, each of which is currently hazardous for drivers and pedestrians. Changes have been made in recent years to the road and footpath around the crossing nearest the roundabout/shops area, but these have only partially ameliorated the situation. Speed humps were trialled but then abandoned. Currently the gap between road and car park on the southern side of the road, in particular, remains limited, compromising visual access for drivers, and limiting their opportunities to anticipate pedestrians crossing the road. Visual access of pedestrians, when coming off the roundabout to travel eastward, remains especially poor.
    It should be noted that this area is close to a large secondary school (Whitebridge High) and is frequented in large numbers at certain times of day by school-age children.
    The area, being semi-rural in character, is also popular with cyclists and joggers, and the proposed development and resulting increased traffic congestion would greatly increase the dangers to these groups.
    Any general increase in the local population, and therefore in pedestrian and vehicular traffic, in this area is likely to increase these hazards, and the medium to high density proposal, in particular, is likely to exacerbate the risks to all users and all age groups.
    Given my professional work in Emergency Medicine, I have particular concerns about these issues.

    Social Impact:
    The character of the Whitebridge/Dudley area is one of a low-density suburb, with all the benefits and drawbacks that that may afford. Residents and visitors enjoy that character, which will be radically altered by the proposed medium to high density development. The existing amenities (shops, schools, parks, sporting facilities) will be placed under significant strain by the additional numbers, and the character of the proposed development will compromise access and enjoyment of these amenities.
    The proposed development is for medium to high density housing, which by its very nature inevitably tends to attract purchasers of investment properties. These properties are therefore often occupied by tenants and not by property owners. The owners of the properties are often remote from the properties, and often reside in another suburb, district or state. (Under current legislation, the owners of investment properties may even reside overseas and their purchase may be supported by a NSW Government grant.)
    Tenants, landlords and owner-occupiers each have a very different perspective on amenities, services and infrastructure. Inevitably, owners of investment properties will seek to maximise their income in the short to medium term, and they may have little investment in the long term future of the area. A medium to high density development in central Whitebridge is therefore likely to confer a permanent and negative social impact on the suburb of Whitebridge.
    Currently, Whitebridge is an area that is attractive to residents of all ages and social backgrounds. It is an ideal environment in which to raise a family, and yet also an ideal area in which to retire. Furthermore, the existing housing, services and amenities make it attractive to young professionals and students.
    There is no doubt that the area in question is suitable for development, and it could be argued that it is in need of development. However, there is also no doubt, given its central location, size and prominence that any such development should be particularly sensitive to the existing character of the suburb, and should be seen as an opportunity to enhance, rather than detract from, the unique character of the area. A medium to low density development, with some open public spaces and limited cafeteria/restaurant facilities, would provide an opportunity for such enhancement.

    Infrastructure, Stormwater, Sewerage:
    The proposed development will place a huge burden on the infrastructure in this area, and it is argued that the existing infrastructure will not cope with the additional demand.
    Public services, such as stormwater, sewerage and public transport, are likely to be significantly compromised by the proposed development, and such services will require to be altered or upgraded to meet increased demand.
    This area has a significant proportion of elderly and young residents, including school-age children (a high school in Whitebridge, as mentioned in the section on Safety above, and a primary school in nearby Dudley), and the proposed development will compromise their access to and enjoyment of local public amenities, such as bus services.

    Precedent for Future Developments:
    The area under development is one of the largest, if not the largest, to be undertaken in the Whitebridge/Dudley area in recent history. It is also in a very central location within Whitebridge. Indeed, it is in the very centre, and is clearly visible from the road and footpath when travelling through Whitebridge in all directions. In fact, one could not enter or leave Whitebridge without seeing and being affected by the area in question.
    Given its location and sheer scale, therefore, there is a great responsibility on the planners of this development “to get it right”. The proposed development clearly does not do that. The development is not in keeping with the existing developments and housing in the area.
    This area could alternatively provide an opportunity for low density housing, an open park area for recreation and relaxation, and perhaps one or two coffee shops. A development of this kind would enhance, rather than detract from, the character of this pleasant and popular residential area.
    If the proposed development is allowed to proceed, it will forever alter the character of the Whitebridge/Dudley area to its detriment, and will potentially set a precedent for further high-density or other inappropriate developments in the future.

    Signed

    David Gleadhill (Dr) MB ChB FRCP FRCS FCEM FACEM
    Consultant Emergency Physician
    DUDLEY NSW 2290

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

    Stephen Ryan commented

    I oppose the development in its current form for several reasons.

    1. There is no comparable sized development in the residential suburb of Whitebridge. To allow a 3 story 87 unit development would set a precedent that could allow other such developments. There are far more suitable areas in Lake Macquarie for such a development, such as designated hub areas (eg Charlestown, Glendale, Toronto, Morriset).

    2. There is already insufficient parking space at Whitebridge shops. The proposed development seeks to add 4 more shops. Without an increase in off-street parking, more cars will be forced to park along Whitebridge Road with its attendant risks to pedestrian safety. In addition, further traffic congestion will result both from the cars of the residents of the development and the cars trying to enter the Whitebridge shops car park, which already causes problems at the roundabout at the junction of Bulls Garden Rd and Whitebridge Rd.

    3. The development has already blocked access to the cycle path built by Council, and the development has not even been started. The current designated exit point from the Fernleigh track at Whitebridge will therefore not allow access to Whitebridge shops or the suburb. In addition, children from several schools will have to detour around this development, potentially onto roads.

    4. The development is so tightly packed with units, driveways and garages that there is almost no room for plantings. The entire development will become a concrete monolith with no intention to bring parkland or breathing space into the area. Native wildlife will have a corridor removed from their environment.

    5. The Lake Macquarie Council has already decided that the development should not go ahead in its present form. This was decided by our elected representatives who are familiar with the area's needs and opinions.

    Stephen Ryan

  4. In Balwyn North VIC on “Subdivide the land into...” at 47 Sutton Street Balwyn North VIC 3104:

    BS commented

    I understood that Boroondara Council had limited subdivision to two. Is that true ?

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

    Michael Dixon commented

    This type of development should not go ahead in my opinion.
    Whitebridge has a certain feel within its community, a character which its residents enjoy. It seems the developer has aimed at creating maximum profit at the cost of the greater Whitebridge area.

    Major issues include,
    1. Dramatic increase in traffic flow within whitebridge

    2. Removal of community space by "fencing off" a large portion of the access to Fernleigh track. (a small pathway around the proposed dwellings is not a suitable substitute for open road through low density) .

    3. It is the catalyst for unprecedented commercialisation of the Whitebridge area. It is no secret the fear many have of the proposed warren rd extension (destruction of bushland, destroying Kahibah's parkland and housing). I feel that if this type of "maximum density" housing goes ahead, it opens the flood gates for such projects and will instill a lack of trust of the council in the hearts and minds of the local community.

    As a engineering graduate I feel that many more options could be researched which benefit all, a development of larger homes at lower density within that field would ensure that whitebridge can retain its bushland feel and not directly benefit a few men within the SNL company.

    Thankyou for reading all comments, we wouldn't have bothered writing them if we didn't feel strongly about this .
    :)

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

    Geoff Dawson 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 development. Myself and my family are particularly affected as we adjoin the development and our property is in Kopa St.
    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.
    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
    *It is my belief that the traffic study done by SNL was conducted on a Tuesday afternoon when Whitebridge High students have already left for sport. This issue needs to be addressed,
    * 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 and these people will be impacted as the amount of visitor parking is inadequate and people will inevitably park in Kopa St or at the shops to visit development.
    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 dense for this area.
    *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.
    *The homes are not environmentally friendly in design and have little regard for the betterment of the community .This development does not allow local residents and Fernleigh track users to pass through to shops.
    The wildlife corridor is not even 20 metres all the way from Fernleigh track.
    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 miniscule greenspace or communal area in which youth and children can spend time.
    This has the potential for future crime rates in the area to increase.
    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.
    Regards
    Geoff Dawson

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

    Karina Currington commented

    To the General Manager, Lake Macquarie City Council
    Re: DA 1774/2013 142 Dudley Rd, Whitebridge

    Dear Sir,

    Please accept this as my follow up submission.

    I attended the local community meeting held on 1/2/2014, where I learned that the Lake Macquarie Council would not be responsible for the collection of waste/ waste management from the proposed development, and it will be the individual owners responsibility to pay privately to have their personal bin/s emptied each week.

    My question is, what is the protocol for if / when individuals refuse or are unable to pay for this basic service? I am concerned that this could lead to illegal dumping in the area, and the knock on effects from this. I understand this will be a strata title but will that include garbage disposal in the corporate body rates?

    Thank you for your time, hope this matter is considered in your approval/ disapproval processes.

    Yours Sincerely.
    Karina Currington

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

    Scott & Cathryn Roberts commented

    Dear Mr Bell,

    I’m writing on behalf of both my wife & I. We have lived at Whitebridge for 24 years, have raised 3 daughters in the area and understand the concerns of the Whitebridge community.

    The planned development adds nothing to the area, it will place a further drain on resources and is totally inappropriate in its proposed form, and please let me explain more:-

    1. Traffic Flow
    a. Access to Lonus Ave during school start & finish times is already at a capacity.
    i. We accepted this when moving to the area but the additional demands of a development this size with only single access to Lonus Ave is unacceptable.
    ii. At a minimum access to Dudley Road should also be considered
    2. Parking
    a. Currently parking at Whitebridge Shops is a challenge, it’s at full capacity.
    b. Where will visitors to the development park?
    i. If each unit is only allocated 2 spaces where will any visitor park?
    1. This will only compound an already difficult situation in the car park at the shops and in the Kopa Street entry.
    3. Play Areas
    a. Simple question, where will the children play or congregate?
    i. If this was an over 50’s development or retirement living we could skip this, but it’s not so the only option for the kids will be the Fernleigh Track, the Shops or to wander the streets. None of which adds to a community.
    4. Additional Community Amenities
    a. When GPT did Charlestown Square there were Parks provided, Clubs built. What extra community benefits does this development provide?
    5. Like Sized Projects
    a. There are no similar sized developments in Lake Macquarie?
    6. Tourism
    a. The Fernleigh Track has become a major draw card to the City; the proposed development will detract from this. It will be a talking point for all the wrong reasons.
    7. Safety
    a. Bush Fires
    i. One access road will make it impossible for people to evacuate if needed
    1. The roads can’t even accommodate a normal council garbage truck
    b. Personal Safety
    i. Personal Safety on the Fernleigh Track will certainly not be improved.
    1. Personally I have already witnessed a confrontation with bored youths throwing items onto the track.

    The land needs to be developed, but it deserves better than the proposed development and even if the proposed development meets a minimum criteria that doesn't mean it’s in the best interest of the community.

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

    Sandra Simmington commented

    Everyone but the money hungry developer knows this development will be madness. Lake Macquarie Shire Council promised this would never happen. Hope we don't end up with a Hassell Street Hamilton scenario.

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

    Lynden Jacobi commented

    There are many issues of concern regarding the proposed development at Kopa St/Dudley Rd.
    - lack of community consultation
    - high density and incompatibility with the surrounding neighbourhood,
    - traffic congestion causing an increase in hazards to pedestrians especially children,
    - parking issues in and around the existing shops and not enough parking spaces for the four proposed new commercial outlets
    - problems with the architectural design which has no environmentally friendly features, and no consideration of communal areas for locals to use
    - no plans on how to integrate such a large population into the Whitebridge community
    - increase in social problems which can arise when a large population is squashed into ill-designed tenements in an already established neighbourhood.
    The quality of design can affect acceptance of a project, both early in the process and after the project is complete. The willingness to respond to neighbours’ suggestions helps projects proceed. The “consultation” with two SNL representatives held at the site in late 2013 was inadequate and offensive to some. There was no consultation just a meeting where residents were told what was going to happen whether we liked it or not.
    Increased populations increase traffic and demand for curbside parking. Both of these factors are known to reduce community safety levels, for children in particular. The congestion generated by increased traffic can lengthen travel times and concentrate vehicle emissions causing environmental degradation and reducing amenity values. Increased traffic levels also generate additional noise in a neighbourhood, as does a more concentrated population.
    The density of this proposed development is not only out of keeping with the surrounding suburb, SNL have made no effort to incorporate ecologically sustainable design principals. This DA could have been designed in the pre-environmental awareness era prior to the1950s. These dwellings are faced to the west-north-west which allows for maximum sun from mid-winter through summer and into early autumn directly into the living areas. Although mid-winter sun sounds good it becomes unbearable when you haven’t enough shade. There will be a need for air-conditioners almost year-round. There are no water tanks and no areas for gardens or drying of clothes. Are SNL assuming each unit will run its dryer daily?
    Many new design projects never find acceptance and this can often be attributed to poor design quality. The physical layout and building structures should be planned with an eye to how they would influence patterns of social interaction and increase the possibilities for informal social control, with clear fields of vision to observe public spaces from individual units. It is important to provide space and opportunities for tenants to meet both for formal and informal activities.
    Providing public amenities (or not) affects perceptions of projects long after they are complete. Projects that provide amenities that are available to the public and not just to residents of the project, more often earn acceptance from neighbours. These include features such as neighbourhood pathways, parks, or the preservation of mature trees.
    This proposed development is to be built in an area formerly used as open space. A reduction in public open green space and the loss of the path to the shops that has been used for generations will severely affect the amenity of the whole area. The proposal plans to discourage anyone other than the new tenants from entering the development which will cause an “us and them” mentality which works against any feeling of welcoming new neighbours into our community.
    Modifications can be made to improve the existing plans and hopefully with input from the local residents, council and SNL we can make something the whole neighbourhood can be proud of.

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

    Kristen Hepple commented

    I am a resident of Redhead and I strongly oppose the proposed development at Dudley Road and Kopa Street, Whitebridge.

    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 4 children who will attend 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.

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

    Jason Hepple commented

    I am a resident of Redhead and I strongly oppose the proposed development at Dudley Road and Kopa Street, Whitebridge.

    Safety of the Fernleigh Track will be compromised:

    As a regular 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 87 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.

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

    Gwenda Smith commented

    RE DA 1774/2013
    TO LMCC General Manager
    I am a long term resident of Whitebridge, having lived here since 1993. My husband and I both have elderly mothers living nearby, as well as a married son and his young family. We will all be affected by the outcome of this DA process, and I am writing to voice my grave concerns.
    I am writing to add to my initial submission on 312/2013, DO6823311. Since that time I have had the opportunity to learn much more about the proposed development for the land adjacent Whitebridge shopping area on Dudley Rd/Kopa St. I have also had the opportunity to speak with numerous local residents from the whole community of Whitebridge, Dudley, Redhead, Kahibah and Charlestown. I have not met any who think that this proposal has any merits in terms of the sheer scale and density of the project.

    Most people realise that the land has been rezoned and will be developed, but we want a GOOD development. This would be to the benefit of the existing wider community, the local businesses and any future residents of the site.

    The land was rezoned with the intention of having approximately 50 houses on the area zoned 2.2, including other land further along Lonus Ave. The intentions of the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy and LMCC LEP 2004 Amendment 53 should be considered when Council and the JRPP review this DA. The developer insults local residents by saying we should have objected to the rezoning when that occurred; the planning proposals for the rezoning gave no indication that a project of 87 townhouses and units, and 4 commercial units, all 2 and 3 storey would be proposed for this parcel of land. The buildings occupy almost all of the land available for development, and even the portion zoned Conservation will be utilised for a stormwater basin during construction, and maybe as a backyard for some of the residents completion.

    The density is too high for this land, as a result of the length and height of the buildings planned.
    The buildings are totally out of character with the surrounding low density, most neighbouring properties are one storey family homes with front and back yards.

    The design of the buildings is very unattractive, with long rows of repetitive units and terraces, rows of garage doors, all looking the same. The visual impact of the buildings will be overwhelming from all sides. It will be inappropriate to look up at a long row of 3 storey terraces from the heritage Fernleigh Track. It will be very unpleasant to sit at the cafes and be on the footpath whilst shopping on the S. side of Dudley Road, and look across at bulky, long buildings opposite, much higher than the existing shops adjacent.

    The DA appears to give no consideration to building in an environmentally sustainable way. In this modern era, it is totally irresponsible to plan buildings that all need air conditioning as they have poor solar orientation, poor ventilation opportunities, no awnings and little room for vegetation for shading purposes. They all will have internal clothed dryers, no rainwater tanks and no garden space. The cost of running these properties will continue to rise.

    The proposal provides insufficient private and public open space. Where will the children play? Where will the teenagers hang out? Where will the adults get together for a BBQ if they decide they can co-exist together in such close quarters and are not fighting with each other, as can happen in overcrowded situations? What if the residents have pets? They can be a source of neighbourhood disputes. Surely the developers have a responsibility to provide adequate open space and recreational facilities where large numbers of people will live within a limited area in a strata development.

    Has the developer planned properly for the landscaping in the limited open areas that do exist? Are the chosen trees and plants suitable for this area, especially as the site includes a Conservation Zone and is adjacent to an ecological corridor, linking forested areas of Glenrock and Awabakal. These areas need to be protected and respected, not ignored.

    Are there plans to remove the trees from Kopa St road reserve? These trees are an integral part of the green corridor and should be retained. If all traffic enters and leaves the site via Kopa St, does this street have to be extended, and by how much. The community would be very concerned to find that LMCC may have entered into an agreement with the developer for these trees on public land to be removed, for the benefit of the developer only. Are the mature native trees on the site being retained and protected during construction?

    Will the local community be excluded from crossing the site to move between Hudson St area, Fernleigh Track, and the Whitebridge shops. This informal pathway has existed for many decades, and is important to the long-established movement of pedestrians, cyclists and tourists using the Track.

    The implications of cramming large numbers of people into the proposed buildings has the potential of causing great social problems. The relationships between people living in such close quarters often become dysfunctional, and the resultant problems then affect other living nearby as well as the wider community. The lack of resources, facilities and space for the residents could cause ongoing problems into the future (eg. domestic violence, malicious damage, disputes between neighbours, vandalism and petty crime) This would be unpleasant for the residents, the local businesses, schools, and the wider community.

    The social and physical infrastructure of the local area is unlikely to cope with the sudden increase in population that could occur. The impact on the local roads would be a dangerous nightmare. The roads radiating out from the Whitebridge roundabout are already very busy with queues a cars building up. The entry and exit points of the existing shop car park are already busy and at times hazardous. The traffic through the "pinchpoint" of Whitebridge on Dudley Rd is heavy, as this road services several suburbs, with cars travelling through this area heading towards many destinations. The T intersection of Burwood Rd and Dudley Rd has become noticeably busier in recent years. SO, the local roads are already operating at or over capacity.

    Will the sewer and stormwater systems cope with this influx of people? The runoff from the site will be greatly increased due to the number and size of the buildings, the amount of hard road surface and the limited green areas. This water will flow towards Fernleigh Track and on to local water ways.

    The proposed development is totally out of character with the local area. The fact that the developer has even put this proposal in for consideration indicates a total INABILITY to assess the local situation, respect and consult with the local community, abide by all manner of government regulations or display much common sense. They have succeeded in getting the wider community offside when this could have been avoided by consultation, good planning and design, and consideration of the existing community lifestyle and ethos.

    The developer will need to greatly change the proposal to gain any approval and acceptance by the residents who have united in their opposition to this unacceptable DA.

    We trust that LMCC and the JRPP will ensure that this DA is rejected and the developer is compelled to submit a DA which will be acceptable to the local residents. A proposal with far fewer dwellings in less buildings, lower height, more open space, greater setbacks from boundaries on all sides, an urban park, open access for all residents, appropriate plantings, attractive buildings, sustainable design will have a greater chance of being approved by all. The lower density would them have less impact on traffic, safety, social issues, and the environment and the new residents would then hopefully be welcomed into this wonderful community.

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

    Gwenda Smith commented

    RE DA 1774/2013
    TO LMCC General Manager
    I am a long term resident of Whitebridge, having lived here since 1993. My husband and I both have elderly mothers living nearby, as well as a married son and his young family. We will all be affected by the outcome of this DA process, and I am writing to voice my grave concerns.
    I am writing to add to my initial submission on 312/2013, DO6823311. Since that time I have had the opportunity to learn much more about the proposed development for the land adjacent Whitebridge shopping area on Dudley Rd/Kopa St. I have also had the opportunity to speak with numerous local residents from the whole community of Whitebridge, Dudley, Redhead, Kahibah and Charlestown. I have not met any who think that this proposal has any merits in terms of the sheer scale and density of the project.

    Most people realise that the land has been rezoned and will be developed, but we want a GOOD development. This would be to the benefit of the existing wider community, the local businesses and any future residents of the site.

    The land was rezoned with the intention of having approximately 50 houses on the area zoned 2.2, including other land further along Lonus Ave. The intentions of the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy and LMCC LEP 2004 Amendment 53 should be considered when Council and the JRPP review this DA. The developer insults local residents by saying we should have objected to the rezoning when that occurred; the planning proposals for the rezoning gave no indication that a project of 87 townhouses and units, and 4 commercial units, all 2 and 3 storey would be proposed for this parcel of land. The buildings occupy almost all of the land available for development, and even the portion zoned Conservation will be utilised for a stormwater basin during construction, and maybe as a backyard for some of the residents completion.

    The density is too high for this land, as a result of the length and height of the buildings planned.
    The buildings are totally out of character with the surrounding low density, most neighbouring properties are one storey family homes with front and back yards.

    The design of the buildings is very unattractive, with long rows of repetitive units and terraces, rows of garage doors, all looking the same. The visual impact of the buildings will be overwhelming from all sides. It will be inappropriate to look up at a long row of 3 storey terraces from the heritage Fernleigh Track. It will be very unpleasant to sit at the cafes and be on the footpath whilst shopping on the S. side of Dudley Road, and look across at bulky, long buildings opposite, much higher than the existing shops adjacent.

    The DA appears to give no consideration to building in an environmentally sustainable way. In this modern era, it is totally irresponsible to plan buildings that all need air conditioning as they have poor solar orientation, poor ventilation opportunities, no awnings and little room for vegetation for shading purposes. They all will have internal clothed dryers, no rainwater tanks and no garden space. The cost of running these properties will continue to rise.

    The proposal provides insufficient private and public open space. Where will the children play? Where will the teenagers hang out? Where will the adults get together for a BBQ if they decide they can co-exist together in such close quarters and are not fighting with each other, as can happen in overcrowded situations? What if the residents have pets? They can be a source of neighbourhood disputes. Surely the developers have a responsibility to provide adequate open space and recreational facilities where large numbers of people will live within a limited area in a strata development.

    Has the developer planned properly for the landscaping in the limited open areas that do exist? Are the chosen trees and plants suitable for this area, especially as the site includes a Conservation Zone and is adjacent to an ecological corridor, linking forested areas of Glenrock and Awabakal. These areas need to be protected and respected, not ignored.

    Are there plans to remove the trees from Kopa St road reserve? These trees are an integral part of the green corridor and should be retained. If all traffic enters and leaves the site via Kopa St, does this street have to be extended, and by how much. The community would be very concerned to find that LMCC may have entered into an agreement with the developer for these trees on public land to be removed, for the benefit of the developer only. Are the mature native trees on the site being retained and protected during construction?

    Will the local community be excluded from crossing the site to move between Hudson St area, Fernleigh Track, and the Whitebridge shops. This informal pathway has existed for many decades, and is important to the long-established movement of pedestrians, cyclists and tourists using the Track.

    The implications of cramming large numbers of people into the proposed buildings has the potential of causing great social problems. The relationships between people living in such close quarters often become dysfunctional, and the resultant problems then affect other living nearby as well as the wider community. The lack of resources, facilities and space for the residents could cause ongoing problems into the future (eg. domestic violence, malicious damage, disputes between neighbours, vandalism and petty crime) This would be unpleasant for the residents, the local businesses, schools, and the wider community.

    The social and physical infrastructure of the local area is unlikely to cope with the sudden increase in population that could occur. The impact on the local roads would be a dangerous nightmare. The roads radiating out from the Whitebridge roundabout are already very busy with queues a cars building up. The entry and exit points of the existing shop car park are already busy and at times hazardous. The traffic through the "pinchpoint" of Whitebridge on Dudley Rd is heavy, as this road services several suburbs, with cars travelling through this area heading towards many destinations. The T intersection of Burwood Rd and Dudley Rd has become noticeably busier in recent years. SO, the local roads are already operating at or over capacity.

    Will the sewer and stormwater systems cope with this influx of people? The runoff from the site will be greatly increased due to the number and size of the buildings, the amount of hard road surface and the limited green areas. This water will flow towards Fernleigh Track and on to local water ways.

    The proposed development is totally out of character with the local area. The fact that the developer has even put this proposal in for consideration indicates a total INABILITY to assess the local situation, respect and consult with the local community, abide by all manner of government regulations or display much common sense. They have succeeded in getting the wider community offside when this could have been avoided by consultation, good planning and design, and consideration of the existing community lifestyle and ethos.

    The developer will need to greatly change the proposal to gain any approval and acceptance by the residents who have united in their opposition to this unacceptable DA.

    We trust that LMCC and the JRPP will ensure that this DA is rejected and the developer is compelled to submit a DA which will be acceptable to the local residents. A proposal with far fewer dwellings in less buildings, lower height, more open space, greater setbacks from boundaries on all sides, an urban park, open access for all residents, appropriate plantings, attractive buildings, sustainable design will have a greater chance of being approved by all. The lower density would them have less impact on traffic, safety, social issues, and the environment and the new residents would then hopefully be welcomed into this wonderful community.

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

    Carolyn Ryan commented

    As a long term resident of Whitebridge I have a number of concerns with this development:

    1. The density of this development- 80 + units on this space is not in keeping with the general character of Whitebridge and Dudley. Having previously lived in built up areas like Merewether we chose to buy a home in Whitebridge because of spacious , community environment. I feel a development of this size is not suitable to the area.

    2. Traffic Congestion - I live on Bullsgarden Rd and frequent the whitebridge shops as do most of Whitebridge, Redhead and Dudley residents. Trafffic is already an issue at the roundabout at Whitebridge especially in the mornings and school pickup to early evening. Access to and from Lonus avenue is particularly difficult at these times for those hundreds of families who have children at Whitebridge High School and Birralee Long Day Care Centre. This development with access only via Kopa Street woould compound this issue.

    3. Parking- Parking at the whitebridge shops is already an issue with limited parking spaces for the many residents who frequent this area. A development of this size would exaccerbate this issue.

    4. Sustainability- As I understand, the development proposes very little green space and all the housing will not have outdoor clothes lines. Dryers would be used. This is something i experienced when living in the densely populated city of Los Angeles. This is Australia, we have space, we have sunlight and clean air, we are trying to reduce our energy use and be "greener" why are allowing a developer to go ahead with such a project. It obviously needs to be scaled back- possibly 40 units on this site would seem to be more environmently sound.

    5. Access to the Fernleigh track- has already been reduced and there will be increased traffic and congestion with the access off Station Street.

    6. Whitebridge is a family community- we need parks and open spaces. The scale of this development is reminiscent of the "projects" I lived near in New Orleans USA . Lets not sell out Whitebridge to the highest bidder. We need lower density, environmentally sound developments.
    PLEASE DON'T APPROVE THIS DEVELOPMENT IN ITS CURRENT FORM

  16. In Broadbeach Waters QLD on “Description: Class: PONTOON...” at 19 Sophie Avenue Broadbeach Waters 4218:

    Donna Carroll commented

    I would like to see the plans of what the changes to his pontoon are as we have been affected by his pontoon as we are in narrow section of the canal he has gone over the authorities acceptance of his pontoon on many occasions and moored boats bigger than what he has been approved for this was to be a very difficult neighbour and his Jet ski pontoon has not been approved either. If he wishes to change the position of his Jet ski pontoon I would like council to come out and inspect that this is not affecting our thoroughfare into our boat ramp and it will be not causing any major obstacles which may be of a dangerous manner for us to access our boat ramp.

    Regards
    Donna Carroll

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

    R Cromarty commented

    I am concerned by the amount of traffic that this new development will cause. Traffic around Whitebridge High, the roundabout and shopping areas at the end of school is already chaotic and very dangerous for school children to be navigating through. I don't believe council or developers have considered the future impact on Whitebridge and its community. Waiting times at local preschools already are at peak with waiting lists beginning whilst the mother is pregnant. They already struggle to go on local excursions due to the amount of traffic.

    Please consider the locals and act wisely.

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

    Kate Akhurst-Dennis commented

    To Lake Macquarie City Council

    I am very concerned about the design proposal for DA 1772-2013 proposed for Lonus Ave, Whitebridge. I lived in Dudley for many years, and my extended family are raising our children in the Charlestown community and we genuinely care about the neighbourhood.

    I do not object to the development of this land. However I think there should be about 40 well- designed quality units, not 70-80 very poorly designed ones.

    The current high density proposal cannot possibly attract residents who care about the important things like decent trees, gardens, personal and communal space, privacy and quiet respect for others. The proposed development seems cold-hearted with the sole objective to maximise profits through high density and low quality. I am confident that the proposed amount of poor quality housing will cause long term problems for the whole community.

    I expect Lake Macquarie Council and the JRPP to make a stand against this development, and accept only a design which will improve the local area in the longer term.

    Yours sincerely
    Kate Akhurst-Dennis

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

    L Carey commented

    As a resident of Dudley Rd (At the Charlestown end), our family has the following concerns;
    1. This density of housing/development is not within character of the general area.
    2. We already have concerns about additional similar but much smaller scale townhouses currently being added or having just been completed on this same road. So any studies into the additional requirements of this development alone - would not be accumulating the overall increased development of this area.
    3. We have concerns about the increased traffic on Dudley Rd. Already we have significant difficulty backing out of our driveway with the number and speed of current vehicles. Street parking is already becoming an issue (especially around Amaroo Nursing home). This development will add additional significant congestion & pressure.
    4. The current infrastructure of footpaths, pedestrian crossings within this area of development is already lacking. With increased vehicle and pedestrian traffic that this development will bring - this problem will only increase. (As an example; try wheeling a pram from Dudley Rd into the playground on the Cnr of Lonus Street). In this example alone, we are forced to make dangerous crossings with young children.
    5. This playground is the only one in the local area that has green space & is fenced. But it already becomes extremely congested at various times of the day and week. Particularly on weekends where childrens birthday parties are often hosted, and the area becomes dominated and dangerous with the number of children. The proposed development means additional use & pressure on a very small playing area which also does not have dedicated or sufficient parking. The toilets are also of serious concern.
    6. The childcare centre next door (Biralee) already has not been able to offer any places this year besides existing children or siblings. Such a large development again is going to add additional stress to services/businesses already not able to cope with the expanding local community.
    7. As mentioned many times above, the high density and design of this development is not only against character but has questionable environmental impacts in addition to the social impacts of such housing.

    Like most of the above submissions, we are not completely opposed to the development of this land. We believe the plans need a significant overhaul and consideration in conjunction to what already exists, has been approved and is in current development.

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

    Brad Willis commented

    Re: DA 1774/2013

    Like many local residents, I am not opposed to development of the site, but am opposed to the scale and layout of the proposed development. It is clearly evident that the focus of the planning was to ensure that the maximum number of allowable dwellings could be constructed on the site, to maximise profits for the developer.

    My objections are that the development is completely out of character with the rest of Whitebridge and Dudley. These areas are sought after because the majority of dwellings are free standing on individual lots, where people take great pride and care in their homes and there is a great sense of community pride.

    Simhill has designed a medium density development with a lack of parking and green space, aligning most of the building broadly east west with no consideration of utilising the benefits of north facing living areas or ecological design.

    This is aside from the fact the proposed development is in a mine subsidence district where three coal seams have been extracted using both partial and secondary extraction techniques. The geotechnical report indicates the factor of safety from the Dudley and Borehole seam suggests that additional subsidence is likley to occur, depending on how much subsidence has already taken place. This is not the place for a high density development of this scale.

    LMCC should take note as to how many people are objecting to this development, which has now drawn greater attention due to the lack of initial consultation in selling the parcel of land and scale of the development, and now through the beligerent attitudes of the developers when the community has exercised their right to question and object to this inappropriate application.

    With other concerns including creation of an urban jungle and traffic issues coming to mind, we hope that common sense will prevail, with Simhill being forced to redesign this development to a more acceptable scale.

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

    Anthony Cleva commented

    I have lived in the Charlestown / Whitebridge area for 50 years. This is a community that deserves better planning than this. We need more open spaces for our community to share and this area has always been open space. As well the increased traffic generated by this high density development will cause considerable traffic issues on roads surrounding the shopping centre already congested.
    If this development is allowed to go ahead it will be to the detriment of our community not a benefit!

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

    Amanda Brown commented

    Re: DA 1774/2013 142 Dudley Road, NSW 2290

    I am writing to express my concerns and opposition to the proposed development for this site.

    To put my concerns and opinions in to context, I live in Hudson Street Whitebridge and I work in Charlestown.

    As many other residents before me have noted, the roads and amenities in the vicinity of the proposed development site are already under significant strain. The projected density and additional vehicles in my opinion will only serve to exacerbate existing issues.

    After reviewing the traffic reports provided by the developer I can state that these do not accurately reflect the actual resident’s experience of navigating Dudley road or the roundabout in peak times. I can only describe this as running a gauntlet due to the sheer volume of vehicles. Whilst traffic delays are a normal and inevitable part of modern life, it is my belief that this will exceed a reasonable limit. Given the anticipated number of units (87) and associated vehicles (anywhere from 100 to 250 additional vehicles) proposed I believe that unless additional measures to upgrade the local amenities are undertaken, Whitebridge will be unable to support this.

    I have both observed and experienced the impact on the local community which first occurred when the development site was fenced off. This has restricted access to the local cafes and shops, as Hudson street does not have a footpath, and the dirt path provided by council leading to Kopa street is difficult to manage for residents such as parents with prams and elderly residents who cannot cope with the uneven ground. This is not only inconvenient but presents numerous dangers to local residents. The development in its current form does nothing to alleviate the issues caused by fencing the block. As the proposed development features a large fence and private roads, effectively shutting the existing community out, I do not see how the proposed design would benefit or add value to Whitebridge.

    Additionally, I would like to express concerns pertaining to the social impact of this proposed development on Whitebridge as a community. What appears to be a popular pro-development opinion in many instances where opposition is evident, is that residents have the option to “go somewhere else if they don’t like it”.

    I recently noted this to the developer’s representative, Wade Morris of SNL on the Whitebridge Community Alliance’s Facebook Page, reporting that “I take issues with any resident being told to ‘go somewhere else’… not everyone has the option to ‘go somewhere else’. Residents who are elderly or not financially viable to be uprooted spring to mind instantly…”. Mr Morris’ response: “…Get involved in the planning process, make a submission, and perhaps next time you purchase a home, complete some detailed due diligence… (I) look forward to reading your submission – I am sure it will be detailed and evidence based – not full of the alarmist, unfounded rubbish you have peddled to date”. Please note that these comments in their entirety have been made by both parties (and are still available at time of submission) on a public website which the reader can easily access via google search.

    In my opinion it is thus little wonder, given such interactions with the developer and their representative Mr Morris, that residents have such grave concerns for the future of their community.

    Had the developer effectively consulted with the Whitebridge and greater community regarding their plans for the site, I believe that a mutually beneficial solution would have been identified. It is also my belief that many residents would still welcome any further opportunity to be involved in any process which may assist in reaching an outcome which would produce a quality development for both the community and the developer. This is evidenced by the attendance of hundreds of residents at both public meetings arranged by the Whitebridge Community Alliance (WCA), and by the many submissions I have read before mine.

    As many residents have already reported, I too am not opposed to development of this site. Whitebridge deserves a quality development which will add value to the area. As outlined above, given my concerns I do not believe this will be the case if the development proceeds as proposed.

    Sincerely

    Amanda Rachel Brown

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

    Catherine James commented

    To Whom It May Concern,

    I am writing to register my concern and objection to the proposed Whitebridge development DA-1772-2013.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thank you,
    C. James

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

    Neil and Colleen Haddow commented

    We have been residents of East Lake Macquarie for 30 years. We believe that this proposed development is totally unsuitable for this location.
    It would significantly impact on the current social, environmental and safety aspects of this Whitebridge Community and surrounding suburbs of Redhead, Dudley and Kahibah.
    The area now is saturated with traffic at peak times, making it particularly dangerous for school children, shoppers, elderly and all users of this area.

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

    Sharna Harris commented

    I am a Year 9 student at Whitebridge High School and would like to voice my concerns over this development.

    I live on Lonus Avenue very close to Kopa Street and I think that the fact there is only one road leading in and out will greatly affect this community in a negative way. Already the traffic on a school day is ridiculous. When I walk to and from school there is constant traffic and on some days I can walk faster than the cars are driving (or not driving when it gets bad enough).

    On days when it is raining and I need to travel by car it is almost impossible for our car to get in and out of our driveway in the morning let alone in the afternoon when everyone leaves school at once.

    It is incredibly dangerous to have schoolkids and young children walking through this kind of traffic especially considering that two boys from my school were hit last year, it makes me worry about mine and my peers safety.

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

    Carmen McCartney commented

    A summary of my submission to The General Manager, Lake Macquarie City Council about DA 1774/2013 at 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street, Whitebridge NSW is as follows:

    Wildlife Corridor – Proposed Development Exacerbates Bottleneck at Whitebridge
    The vegetation adjacent to and within this proposed 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.

    Summary of Issues:
    1) No consultation with critical local stakeholders and wildlife corridor experts including Office of Environment and Heritage; Parks and Great Eastern Ranges Initiative and independent local expert ecologists at the time of this development proposal or at the time of rezoning as shown in Planning Proposal Draft Amendment No. 53 to Lake Macquarie LEP 2004 (East Charlestown Bypass – Stage One .

    SUGGESTED ACTION: Consultation with the appropriate agency and landscape managers of Glenrock State Conservation Area and the Awabakal Nature Reserve to ensure that the rezoning and this proposed development promotes the enhancement of necessary corridor linkages and ensures no fragmentation of populations and habitat.

    2) The Lake Macquarie Native Vegetation and Corridors Map prepared by Lake Macquarie City Council shows that at the development site there is a “Crossing Point” a “Rehabilitation Corridor” and a “Corridor narrowed to less than 200m” yet there appears to be no documentation that further defines the corridors, identifies their functions on a local scale and examines faunal dispersal through these corridor regions. This type of survey should have been carried out for local threatened species at the time of “Charlestown Bypass Rezoning” and for this development application.

    SUGGESTED ACTION: Council to provide a detailed local on ground site assessment at the development site to identify the function of these three corridor zones on local scales (preferably over a year to monitor animal movement and in conjunction with Glenrock and Awabakal land managers). Results from this assessment should then be used to ensure the “conservation zone” in the proposed development does in fact enable viability and movement along the identified corridor zones and crossing of fauna at both the Dudley and Kopa ends of the development.

    3) In the proposed development, the “conservation zone” is zoned 7(2) Conservation Secondary (or E2) however, the Landscape Master Plan and Bushfire Plan does not propose conditions that are conducive to a viable corridor or meet E2 conditions such as “Conserve, enhance and manage corridors to facilitate species movement, dispersal, and interchange of genetic material.”

    SUGGESTED ACTION: Amend the development proposal Landscape Masterplan and Bushfire Threat Assessment APZs with the assistance of local land managers and ecologists to ensure that a viable corridor with necessary crossings is regenerated, expanded and maintained to the Zone 7(2)/E2 specifications. Include a yearly assessment of the area by a council ecologist to ensure the corridor has been maintained and is functional.

    Background information supporting my concerns and suggested actions can be found in my complete submission document at www.apptracking.lakemac.com.au 1774/2013
    Sincerely
    Carmen McCartney

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

    Phillipa Parsons commented

    Re: Submission on DA 1774/2013 - 142 Dudley Road WHITEBRIDGE NSW 2290

    I am a resident of Charlestown East and a teacher at Whitebridge High School where my son attends in Year 8. I consider myself part of the wider Whitebridge community and shop regularly at the village. I am also a regular user of the Fernleigh Track, entering from both sides of the Whitebridge station. I wish to register my opposition to the proposed development at Kopa Street, Whitebridge for the following reasons:

    • An objective of Zone R3 is to enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

    This development does not provide sufficient open space or common areas for residents’ particularly children and young people, to congregate, recreate and generally enjoy being outside. There is no ‘kick a ball’ space for children and from the plans it appears that neither will there be sufficient ‘yard’ area in any of the dwellings to allow children room to run around in a safe and secure environment. Further, there is no safe and secure environment for teenagers to gather – no common area in which to congregate.

    • An objective of Zone R3 is to maintain and enhance the residential amenity and character of the surrounding area.

    This development, in its current form, is inconsistent with the immediate and wider surrounds. It fails to offer any enhancement of the current amenity and character by nature of the density and size of the dwellings. Further, its appearance is not aesthetically pleasing, and it fails to offer any pleasant interface between it and surrounding homes and the Fernleigh Track. Indeed, this development will result in a loss of connectivity from the shopping village and the Fernleigh Track, forcing track users to deviate onto roadways to access the shopping village. This may result in a loss of business to the local shops and cafes and would be detrimental to the relaxed character of the area, especially on weekends. This development is inconsistent with Lake Macquarie Council’s goal to provide ‘Quality Lifestyle’ for existing and future residents, regardless of the zoning.

    .

    • Does this development proposal meet the aims of S.1.3 from the LM DCP 2013, specifically with regard to meeting the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development?
    The principles underpinning ecologically sustainable development that should be used to guide decision making and actions include:
    • The precautionary principle.
    • Intergenerational equity.
    • Biodiversity and ecological diversity.
    • Improved economic valuation including environmental factors
    The lack of open space to recreate and relax outside is detrimental to the wellbeing of the future residents, adults, children and young people. Has a precautionary principle been applied here in ensuring the safety, happiness and wellbeing of future generations? As current community members we need to ensure future developments in our community will provide not only a living space but contribute to a healthy, functional community for future members. The density of the proposed development will not facilitate the growth of a vibrant neighbourhood – it will create a dense, concrete mini-suburb with an absence of a common area in which residents can meet, BBQ and get to know one another.

    Has consideration been given to developing social capital? How will future residents develop this as a community of people? What opportunities will the future residents have to build their communal network in the absence of any communal space? How will future residents integrate into the established community? This proposed development, in its current form, will not contribute to the social economic valuation of the existing community.

    • There has been a lack of consultation between the developer and the community.

    A development of this size and density will have a major impact on the amenity and character of Whitebridge. The developer has failed to properly consult with key stakeholders – the community and the business owners in the shopping village. A complete disregard of community has been demonstrated and as a result the developer does not have any social licence to proceed with this in its current form. The lack of consultation has resulted in massive opposition from the community, both Whitebridge and surrounding suburbs as the shopping village is a hub for those who would prefer to avoid the busy Charlestown Square. The developer has underestimated the community and their interest in what happens within their community. Had a more extensive consultation process been undertaken, the developer may have reached a suitable compromise, gained social licence and ensured the happiness and wellbeing of existing and future residents.

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

    Tim Woicek commented

    I am a resident of Redhead and work in Charlestown. I drive or ride a bike along Dudley Road regularly and am a frequent user of the Fernleigh Track. My reasons for opposing DA1774/2013 are many and have been put forth very well by many. Briefly, here are a few: loss of green space, traffic congestion, inadequate allowance for new residents' parking needs and inadequate open space within the development. It appears that greed, and not the good of the community, is the primary motivation of the developer.
    Thanks for your consideration,

    Tim Woicek

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

    Tracey Tutton commented

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

    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. We walk from Station Street, where we live, and then along Dudley Road. Dudley Road is already very busy and not pedestrian-friendly. I

    I am extremely concerned about the proposed development at Dudley Rd and Kopa St, Whitebridge.

    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.

    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 ugly, out-of-place development rather than for its pleasant, community vibe.

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

    Nathan tutton commented

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

    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. We walk from Station Street, where we live, and then along Dudley Road. Dudley Road is already very busy and not pedestrian-friendly. I feel very concerned about the safety of walking to the shops and park if this development goes ahead, given the substantial increase in traffic which will occur.

    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. There is nothing else like this in the area and it will not ’gel’ well with the existing surroundings.

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