Recent comments

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

    Len McCarthy commented

    JRPP SUBMISSION AUGUST 31 2015 from Len McCarthy

    I am asking the JRPP to reject this DA on the grounds of its total unsuitability for Whitebridge and the damage it will do to the wildlife corridor along the Fernleigh Track.
    1-The DA has no merit that would excuse it exceeding the development guidelines. The DA exceeds the recommended height, density and visual impact guidelines by large percentages and would seriously degrade the quality of Whitebridge suburb.
    2-If allowed this DA would encourage an explosion of four-story development along Lonus Avenue, Bullsgarden Road and Dudley Road, which would be unsuitable for the area. Within ten years this area will look like Ashfield rather than Whitebridge.
    3- The DA requires the removal of six trees to construct a driveway for lot number 23. The Arboriculture Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan commissioned by the developer says ... “these trees were assessed and generally found to have some structural faults, poor form or disease.” In fact these trees form an essential link along the wildlife corridor connecting Awabakal, Glenrock State Recreation Area and the Belmont Wetlands and trees with ‘structural faults, poor form and disease’ are exactly what wildlife need for food, nesting sites and migration.
    Because the removal of these trees and understory and groundcover would cut the wildlife corridor the DA is in breach of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
    The developer claims that, “The proposed Landscape Master Plan will improve ecological function of the faunal
    movement corridor identified under the LMCC Native Vegetation and Corridors Mapping Plan.”
    This claim is impossible if it includes destroying mature trees which right now are providing food, nesting, safety and travel for existing populations of endangered species such as the Squirrel Glider (Petaurus norfolcensis) recently documented in the area.
    There is absolutely no chance that this development would “improve ecological function of the faunal movement corridor” and it is clearly in breach of both the letter and the intent of local, state and federal law.
    So I ask the JRPP to reject this DA in its current form.
    Len McCarthy 31 August 2015.

  2. In Reservoir VIC on “Construction of a three (3)...” at 262 Broadway Reservoir VIC 3073:

    Jennifer Sanders commented

    This application should not be approved as it stands. All buildings should abide by current car parking requirements or else you simply force more cars to be parked in an already crowded area. They are simply trying to fit more buildings on smaller spaces to make more money and cut out meeting their obligations around adequate parking so as not to add more congestion to our streets. Make them reduce the number of dwellings and use that space instead for the required off street car parks.

  3. In Coburg North VIC on “Construction of six...” at 33 Merlyn Street, Coburg North VIC 3058:

    Raymond Vimba commented

    These units are totally out of character with the area. The premises south of of the proposed development would be shaded and would suffer a total loss of privacy.

    The lack of parking will cause a massive overflow of vehicles in the local streets which are already chocked on a daily basis by vehicle parked by rail commuters. Many of this units will become rentals and the location will lend itself to attracting overseas students who happily share rooms to minimise expense's but invariably each end up owning their own vehicle which will end up parked in Merlyn Street or or Novian Street.

    Much of Merlynston's appeal is the peaceful village atmosphere which promoted by local residents, retailers and even the Moreland City Council who now appear happy to reap the benefits of extra revenue at the expense of the local residents.

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

    Brett Suprano commented

    The reason we have planning departments in councils, and the JRPP, is so that development occurs with integrity and with positive results. It is imperative that the JRPP stand up to this developer, and demand that they comply with the conditions set down. They are getting away with not complying with so many of the council’s own planning guidelines as it is - the community wonders why these guidelines exist, and why the average resident is bound by them, if a developer with lots of money can come along and change it all to suit themselves. Is that the kind of society we want to live in? The developer must comply, just like everyone else. I hereby submit my previous submission, here below, as these concerns have not been addressed.

    I wish to express my opposition to the development on Dudley Road, Whitebridge DA 1774/2013.
    The developer has failed to address the issues that are of huge concern.
    The land was intended for 40-50 dwellings, which is still much more dense than the rest of Whitebridge, but which could still blend in with the suburb which should be the intention of any new development. The proposed number of 91 dwellings is mass over-development.
    Four storeys along Dudley Road demonstrates a lack of regard not only for community concerns, but also for council planning guidelines. The intended maximum number of storeys for a neighbourhood centre is HALF this.
    It is inappropriate and irresponsible to use the environmental corridor as a pathway from the Track to Dudley Road.
    Council’s Lifestyle 2020 and 2030 documents reflect the fact that urban consolidation is desirable, but there was surely no intention that it be achieved in such a drastic, thoughtless and inappropriate manner.
    It was once fortunate for Whitebridge that a large parcel of undeveloped land existed, as the possibilities were exciting – now it is extremely unfortunate as it could mean the destruction of the suburb as we know it.

    Regards,
    Brett Suprano

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

    Lisa Suprano commented

    I put forward all my previous concerns, once again, as stated here below, because once again, these concerns have been ignored. This DA must not be approved in its current form. May I add, that it is extremely unfair to ignore the concerns of citizens, the least of the reasons being that it has resulted in them having to submit 4 times, saying the same thing each time!

    DA 1774/2013 – Development of Dudley Road/Kopa Street
    I strongly oppose the proposed development of Dudley Road and Kopa Street.
    I often walk to the shops or park with my friend and our children from Station Street. I am concerned about the safety of walking around Whitebridge with children in the event of an addition of 91 dwellings and their cars in the centre of the neighbourhood.
    I am also concerned about the traffic congestion that will occur. There will also be a dramatic increase in the number of pedestrians using the walkways and crossings, which will slow down the movement of traffic past the shops. The roads are already barely coping when considering the amount of movement around the suburb related to the shops, park, tennis court, oval, 2 preschools, highschool and general traffic passing through on the way to Dudley and Redhead.
    This development is not in keeping with the current character of Whitebridge. Whitebridge is a neighbourhood with a village-like atmosphere. A 91 unit, 3 to 4 storey development is totally out of character for this area. It will impact negatively on the atmosphere of the neighbourhood.
    The proposed development will look out of place in a neighbourhood where most dwellings are single-storey houses. Although it is inevitable that the area will increase in density over time given the zoning applied, to attempt to grow so drastically, all on one piece of land, in the heart of the neighbourhood, is inappropriate growth and will have devastating consequences for the suburb.
    The developement is also too close to the Fernleigh Track and will ruin the current tranquil experience of using the track. Also of concern is the developer's lack of regard for the Environmental Corridor which should remain undisturbed.
    The deciding body must act responsibly with a view to securing a positive future for the suburb.

    Lisa Suprano

  6. In Scoresby VIC on “Three Double Storey Dwellings” at 92 Grayson Drive, Scoresby VIC 3179:

    Trudi commented

    On road parking will cause problems for a busy intersection of Anne and Grayson Roads. Bus # 753 will have problems negotiating this corner, not to mention emergency services. Restrictions need to be put in place, no parking on the Grayson Rd side of this property as a minimum.

  7. In Potts Point NSW on “Dreamgirls - Liquor licence...” at B 77 Darlinghurst Rd, Potts Point 2011:

    Andrew Woodhouse commented

    We object to this proposal as the applicant/s have a criminal background.
    The proposal is not in the public interest.

  8. In Melbourne VIC on “Change of use of an...” at 58-66 La Trobe Street Melbourne VIC 3000:

    David commented

    This proposed development is not consistent with the use of this area for predominantly residential purposes. This type of use should be confined to those areas of the city that already have substantial noise disturbance and late night pedestrian traffic. The world's most livable city needs segregated residential zones so the amenity of the city is preserved for both those that live in the city and those that come to the city for entertainment purposes. The mixing for these zones does not constitute good planning to maintain the city's amenity for all users.

  9. In Melbourne VIC on “Change of use of an...” at 58-66 La Trobe Street Melbourne VIC 3000:

    Alex commented

    This quadrant of the Hoddle Grid is an established residential area. An approval for such a club would demonstrate a total lack of disregard by council for residents of this area.

    The proposal is certainly not welcomed by myself or neighbours.

  10. In Swansea NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at McDonalds, 240 Pacific Highway, Swansea NSW 2281:

    Betty Harvie commented

    Glad to see something is being done to stop the traffic hold-ups in Wood Street and the Old Pacific Highway by cars waiting to turn in to McDonald's drive-in. Pity the lazy individuals didn't park their cars and walk in.

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

    Dale Andrews commented

    Dear General Manager Hawkesbury Council, Kim Ford, Bob Porter, Patrick Conolly, Mary Lyons Buckett, Jill Reardon, Christine Paine, Mike Creed, Paul Rasmussen, Barry Calvert, Leigh Williams,Warwick Mackay, Tiffany Tree, Louise Markus MP, Andrew Johnston, Dominic Perottet.

    I have viewed the DA0503/15 and am strongly opposed to the development proceeding due to the
    following reasons -

    • VEHICHLE TRAFFIC
    On any given weekday during peak travel periods Windsor Rd looks more like a carpark then a major thoroughfare. Windsor Rd is not cannot adequately accommodate the current volume of traffic during peak periods. The intersection of Windsor Rd and Pitt Town Rd McGraths Hill contributes to the existing traffic congestion problem as the right turning lane is inadequate in length and well beyond capacity during peak travel periods with traffic backed up to Vineyard on most days. Currently the residents of Wolseley Rd and Old Hawkesbury Rd already experience high volumes of thoroughfare traffic from people who ‘cut through’ McGraths Hill residential streets in order to avoid the Windsor Rd/Pitt Town Rd intersection. I fear noisy traffic will continue to increase further should this Development application proceed, which will negatively impact on our community. The regular operating hours of the proposed Place of Worship, provided in the Noise impact Assessment, align with peak hour traffic congestion periods and therefore further traffic congestion will be inevitable during operating hours.

    • PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC
    Those attending the Place of Worship via public transport would be arriving via Train at Mulgrave Train Station which is only a short 10 minute walk from this proposed development. Additional pedestrians will be walking along Mulgrave Rd onto Windsor Rd and then using the same intersection to cross over onto Pitt Town Rd (two pedestrian crossings). There are currently no footpaths to accommodate pedestrians from Pitt Town Rd – to the proposed development site. With only 50 car parking spaces provided, if guests are forced to park on surrounding streets then this will obstruct the vision of pedestrians who will be forced to walk on the side of the road.This is very unsafe and will need to be addressed.

    • PARKING
    During special events and festivals the DA applications mentions an estimated 125 attendees at the proposed building with only 50 parking spaces to accommodate these guests and staff etc. It is documented in the Operations Management Plan that ‘Bollard and Chain barriers’ will be used once the rear car park is full. I can only assume that once this car park is full, the overflow will have to park within the residential streets immediately surrounding the development site or on the shoulder of Windsor Rd, as there are no other parking facilities in the area and the surrounding streets are currently too narrow to accommodate kerbside parking.

    • NOISE
    McGraths Hill is well known for being a quiet small community with a rural outlook and local heritage. This will be jeopardised during special events and festivals held at the proposed place of worship. I also note that section 2.3.2 of the Noise Impact Assessment mentions that attendance of more than 125 people is ‘not expected’ however the size of the proposed building seems largely excessive and would likely accommodate double the amount of people. I them question why a building if this size is required if attendance is not expected to exceed 125 people during ‘peak’ operating days. Noise levels may very well exceed those presented in the Noise Impact Assessment should this occur.

    • APPEARANCE/AESTHETICS
    I believe the external appearance of the proposed place of worship is not compatible with the surrounding buildings and rural outlook of the area. It is not in keeping with the Hawkesbury’s heritage identification.

    • SOCIADEMOGRAPHIC
    The Hawkesbury is the largest local government area in metropolitan Sydney and covers an area of 2,793 square kilometres with a population of approximately 65,000. The most recent Census data available indicates that throughout the whole of the Hawkesbury region there are only 97 people who are practising Hinduism. That’s 0.1% of our community. A Place of Worship of this magnitude is not required within the Hawkesbury local government area.
    I strongly believe that the impact on the remaining 99.9% of the Hawkesbury population will be negative due to the above reasons.

    SUMMARY
    I am strongly opposed to the development proceeding. A religious group which accounts for 0.1% of the entire Hawkesbury community does not require a building of this magnitude. It will negatively impact our local heritage that everyone associates with the Hawkesbury and will greatly impact on the poor infrastructure around the proposed building site. I believe that the vast majority of attendees at this Place of Worship will not reside within the Hawkesbury Local Government area given the most recent Census data, and therefore will not be contributing to land rates etc to improve/maintain/repair the infrastructure required to specifically accommodate this development. Our rates are better spent on infrastructure which will benefit the community as a whole.

    Thank you for your time and consideration.

    Dale Andrews
    Wolseley Rd
    McGraths Hill NSW 2756

  12. In South Launceston TAS on “Natural and Cultural Values...” at 123 Westbury Road South Launceston TAS 7249:

    Lisa Walkden commented

    How many trees are being removed as a percentage of the vegetation already there? What is the purpose for their removal?
    Will the area that is having trees removed be subdivided?
    Lisa Walkden
    South Launceston
    0408 881257

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

    Ross Beveridge commented

    Once again, by ignoring most of the requirements of the JRPP to redesign the proposal the developer has shown their contempt for the rules.

    This is not a site that requires the rules to be bent to fit in with unique limitations. It is a wide open blank canvas but still the developer pushes past the legal limit driven by greed.

    The latest plan has only a slight downgrading of the height of the buildings meaning they will still exceed the maximum.

    They still illegitimately used the conservation zone for drainage and fire protection.

    They haven't met the mandatory parking requirements.

    They have failed to plan for use of the open space.

    JRPP needs to reject this design.

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

    Sarah Morrison commented

    As a regular visitor to Whitebridge and a regular user of the Fernleigh Track I object to this development. It will poorly integrate with the beautiful bushy surrounds, create a visual eyesore, increase pedestrian and cyclist dangers and impedes the conservation of the area. This land should be developed in a manner that complements and integrates with the natural and man made surroundings, rather than alienate from it.

    The fact that this developer has ignored building rules and regulations and now ignored the JRPP ruling is absurd.

    This development needs to be rejected in favour of a less dense one that fits the desired future of Whitebridge .

  15. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Construction of twelve...” at 28 Merbein Street, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Joe commented

    We have some people trying to turn this street into an urban slum, thanks!

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

    Katherine Cox commented

    My previous concerns still hold true, as the design has not been suitably altered.

    I would also like to express my concern regarding the developer’s lack of compliance with the conditions set out by the JRPP in the meeting on 23rd of July, and how this non-compliance should result in rejection by the JRPP.

    Other issues that I would like to see addressed are:-

    • The excessive height which goes against legislated limits of 10m and contributes to the unsupported density in a neighbourhood centre, and is grossly incompatible with current character and any expressed future character as described in LMCC Lifestyle 2030.

    • Misuse and under-estimation of the significance of the environmental zoned land. The 7(2), now E2, conservation zoned land is being used by this development for asset protection and infrastructure but will give it to council to manage.
    Council’s assessment failed to acknowledge the existence of at least one threatened species [the squirrel glider] presence in the corridor and the strong likelihood of their use of the wildlife corridor and crossing point at this site. The compromised link between Glenrock State Conservation Area, Belmont Wetlands and the Awabakal nature reserve and the negative impact this could have on biodiversity has been made more vulnerable again due to Council’s failure to accurately follow their own “Flora and Fauna Survey Guidelines” in their response to this development. The development also contravenes the following:
    - Lifestyle 2030 p43. “Existing corridors should be protected and enhanced, disjointed corridors should be restored, and barriers to fauna movement crossed to link habitat areas. Native vegetation corridors and barrier crossings allow the Green System to function as an integrated system.”
    - In the LMDCP – Section 7 Development in Environmental Zones at 2.11 BUSHFIRE
    Objectives:
    · To ensure that risks associated with bushfire are appropriately and effectively managed on the development site.
    · b. To ensure that bushfire risk is managed in connection with the preservation of the ecological values of the site and adjoining lands.
    Controls:
    · Development must comply with the NSW Planning for Bushfire Protection Guidelines
    · Asset Protection Zones must:
    · i. Be incorporated into the design of the development;
    · ii. Be as low maintenance as possible;
    · iii. Be located outside areas of ecological value and the buffers necessary to protect them; and
    · iv. Not occur on adjoining environmental zoned land.

    - At 2.12 Flora and Fauna, especially

    6. Native vegetation buffers must be provided between development and areas containing threatened flora and fauna species or their habitat, threatened vegetation communities and native vegetation corridors. The width of the buffer should be determined with reference to the function of the habitat, the threat of sea level rise and the type of development proposed. The buffer should be designed to keep the area of significance in natural condition.
    and
    10. Buildings and structures, roads, driveways, fences, dams, infrastructure, drainage and asset protection zones should be located outside of areas with significant flora and fauna, native vegetation corridors and buffers.

    • Unappreciated visual impact on the suburb and along the Fernleigh Track. This development creates an unfortunate clash point with its surrounds. It also foreshadows other intrusions along the Track as likely and instead of adhering to Council’s plans to mitigate against such clashes, foregrounds a tolerance for them.

    • Failure to provide adequate visitor parking for the proposal, which is going to impact very negatively on the shopping area which Council, the developer, traffic assessments and the community have ALL acknowledged is ALREADY a problem, already presenting a shortfall. What has been proposed increases the short fall by 16 parking spaces. Council supports a worsening of existing parking problem at the shops. They are building problems in, not solving them.
    At the time of rezoning, the issue of parking in the shopping precinct was identified as a problem. A request for 30 new car spaces to cater for shopper and Fernleigh Track user demands was made. This was ignored, despite council’s assessor at the time stating, “I would agree that parking or the provision of parking with the Fernleigh track will be an increasing problem.” No solution was offered.
    The 2009 East Charlestown Traffic Study identified the commercial area of Whitebridge as warranting investigation for the following reasons:
    - stacking through the roundabout
    - inadequate parking
    - dangers when executing a right hand exit
    - safety of pedestrians through the site

    • An unsatisfactory size, location and management for the “private public” open space for the development.

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

    Dean Broughton commented

    I hereby resubmit my previous submission, reiterating what I had already written in the 2 before that! The JRPP made only minute changes to this massive development in a small suburb, and the developer has not even been willing to amend their plans to reflect these. This DA must be rejected as it does not comply with LMCC planning guidelines OR JRPP conditions.

    To whom it may concern
    I strongly oppose the development of the large parcel of land at Dudley Road and Lonus Avenue, Whitebridge.
    It is very clear to see that the proposed development will not fit in with the suburb. It is in the heart of the suburb which is currently developing such a growth in atmosphere and community spirit as a result of popular shops and cafes and visitors from the Fernleigh Track. The village atmopshere so desirable for our suburbs will be destroyed.
    Traffic problems will be the result of a sudden increase of 91 dwellings in the area. The local infrastructure will be unable to cope. The safety of residents and pedestrians will be compromised.
    I cannot understand how the developer can propose a development of 4 storeys when council guidelines stipulate 2 storeys is appropriate for a neighbourhood centre, which is adequate for a small suburb.
    The Fernleigh Track, which currently provides an 'escape into the bush' experience for Novocastrians will be disappointingly compromised by such a huge monstrosity of a development right next to it.
    Further, the developer using the environmental corridor to accommodate the permeability requirement of good 'safety by design' principles is outrageous. This developer time and time again has made decisions which appear to demonstrate their lack of social conscious and their self-serving interests.
    People are speaking loudly against this. Council and the JRPP must listen!

    Dean Broughton

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

    Dean Broughton commented

    I hereby resubmit my previous submission, reiterating what I had already written in the 2 before that! The JRPP made only minute changes to this massive development in a small suburb, and the developer has not even been willing to amend their plans to reflect these. This DA must be rejected as it does not comply with LMCC planning guidelines OR JRPP conditions.

    To whom it may concern
    I strongly oppose the development of the large parcel of land at Dudley Road and Lonus Avenue, Whitebridge.
    It is very clear to see that the proposed development will not fit in with the suburb. It is in the heart of the suburb which is currently developing such a growth in atmosphere and community spirit as a result of popular shops and cafes and visitors from the Fernleigh Track. The village atmopshere so desirable for our suburbs will be destroyed.
    Traffic problems will be the result of a sudden increase of 91 dwellings in the area. The local infrastructure will be unable to cope. The safety of residents and pedestrians will be compromised.
    I cannot understand how the developer can propose a development of 4 storeys when council guidelines stipulate 2 storeys is appropriate for a neighbourhood centre, which is adequate for a small suburb.
    The Fernleigh Track, which currently provides an 'escape into the bush' experience for Novocastrians will be disappointingly compromised by such a huge monstrosity of a development right next to it.
    Further, the developer using the environmental corridor to accommodate the permeability requirement of good 'safety by design' principles is outrageous. This developer time and time again has made decisions which appear to demonstrate their lack of social conscious and their self-serving interests.
    People are speaking loudly against this. Council and the JRPP must listen!

    Dean Broughton

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

    Kimberley Broughton commented

    I write again in opposition of the proposed development at Whitebridge. The developer has not complied with conditions as set down by the JRPP. They have disregarded community concerns. They will readily sacrifice the population of a native species. This development will be disastrous for the area, and the developer has communicated, loudly and clearly, that the only concern they have is maximizing their bottom line. For all these reasons, and the reasons stated in my previous submissions, this DA must not be approved.

    One can only wonder how on earth a development proposal that is against council regulations, protested strongly by the community and so obviously a money-grabbing venture on the part of opportunistic developers can progress so far as to be put before the JRPP for a decision to be made.
    Any arguments that this is 'urban consolidation' are simply not genuine.
    The proposed development undoubtedly will cause many more problems than what it offers as positive contributions (the latter of which are almost impossible to identify).
    These problems revolve around traffic congestion and parking problems on roads already at full capacity, dangers to pedestrians, an inevitable increase in crime, damage to social harmony, erosion of an environmental corridor, lack of adequate storm water provisions, aesthetic damage to the suburb and Ferleigh Track as a result of non-compliance with council's height limits and dwellings-per-hectare guidelines.
    I have not once, for the entire duration of this process from proposal till now, heard ANYONE (besides the developers) say that this is a positive approach to urban consolidation and a benefit to the community. There has been only negative responses to this development.
    Surely JRPP will easily see why.

    Kim Broughton

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

    Lisa Galvin Waight commented

    My daughter attends Birralee Daycare on Kopa Street, metres from the only entrance and exit of this development. As it is now it is an extremely busy street and can be difficult to safely get a parking space and get my daughter into daycare. With the addition of hundreds of extra cars into this small area the potential for accidents will increase dramatically. The LMCC assessment has stated that traffic problems and dangers to pedestrians are not a problem, this is wrong. LMCC have ignored over 700 complaints from locals and based their assessment on a (false) report.

    SNL have exceeded height limits, misused conservation zones, ignored the reasonable concerns of locals and disregarded the recommendations set out by the JRPP.

    I ask that the JRPP reject this over development.

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

    Catherine James commented

    I object to this development DA 1774/2013.

    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.

    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 buildings of this size in the entire area. These zoning requirements could still be met with far fewer residences, and would alleviate many of the associated problems raised by residents.

    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.

    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. I have two small children and these 'family homes' with no outdoor space and minimal communal space that will share a wall with neighbours on both sides would be disastrous in a suburban setting. This will only create conflict and boredom, especially with teenage residents.

    I had believed that the LMCC had been taking its environmental responsibilities seriously. However, the complete disregard for environmental concerns within this development proposal are alarming. The misuse of the conservation zone is appalling.
    A 3 bedroom home NEEDS to have personal outdoor space to accommodate that number of inhabitants and to relieve social pressure on the surrounding community.

    The fact that this developer has disregarded community concerns, LMCC regulations and now the recommendations set out by the JRPP is outrageous.

    JRPP needs to REJECT this development

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

    Karyn Huizing commented

    To whom it may concern, please accept this submission AGAIN regarding the development
    . DA-1774/2013, 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street Whitebridge
    I am writing to voice my extreme objection to various elements of this developments new design. I find it hard to understand how so much seemed to ride on the JRRP decision and yet the developer has not complied with a variety of the recommendations, which were minor and in my opinion didn't support the community near enough,as it had the power to do.
    MYSELF AND MY FAMILY ARE PARTICULARLY AFFECTED AS WE ADJOIN THE DEVELOPMENT AND OUR PROPERTY IS ON THE CORNER OF KOPA ST. (The only entry and exit)
    Councils are employed for all the people, not just those of wealth and it is my opinion that this community has rallied together with good reason for a common goal: That being a good development that fits into the local community. I also feel that the decision that is made about this development will set a standard for other properties along this corridor of land previously planned for a major bypass. This is also a major concern.
    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 of which are taken from my property and 1 a video taken at school time PM. Please,please take the time to view proof of traffic issues that already exist. They show in video evidence the extent of traffic and delays.
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=805396379474141&set=o.390027067798916&type=2&theater
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10202767772455981&set=o.390027067798916&type=1&theater
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=633417736695367&set=o.390027067798916&type=1&theater
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=633417163362091&set=o.390027067798916&type=1&theater
    *The waiting times shown in the traffic study shocked me. As is demonstrated in the above links traffic can be backed up past Bula St on Dudley Rd and past Turrug St on Lonus ave. The reality is clearly shown in these links.
    * 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. Also only having 1 exit where customers leave the carpark is ludicrous and only adds to daily chaos and danger of this carpark.
    *Kopa St is already used as a parking area for users of the Fernleigh track before adding to the parking on the street. Not everyone will park in underground parking particularly during the day.
    *I am extremely concerned about the impact on my family and home during the construction phase of such a huge development. How long will we be subject to building on the adjacent block and what impact will it have on our lives,road etc.
    *When voicing my concern about the scale and how this will affect me I was basically told if I didn't like it I could always move! This is my home of 20+ years and now I should move? I believe this shows an arrogance of developers and total lack of respect for community should it be allowed to go ahead in it's current form.
    2) Size and design of Development.
    *This development is not in keeping with surrounding areas. There are no developments of this size in the surrounding area and this DA is akin to building a city within a suburb. The 2 and 3 storeys are far too high and still too dense for this area and the plan for the commercial development of 4 storeys does not fit at all with the current surrounds at all, the newest plans have,unbelievably, increased the density. It will affect the whole shopping village. Developers do not live here and suffer the effects. Once their money is made they move on and we the community will be left in their wake should it be allowed.
    *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. Councillors who voted on the rezoning wouldn't have agreed had they seen the future twist.
    *It encroaches on the privacy of adjoining properties greatly and changes the visual landscape of the area dramatically.
    *.This development is widely condemned by the local community and myself due in part to the sheer density.
    *This land is only a part of the corridor that was zoned for the eastern bypass and this parcel of land needs to be managed very carefully as it is a catalyst for future developments along this important land corridor that adjoins the Fernleigh track.
    *There is still minimal greenspace or communal areas in which youth and children can spend time and the playground is I believe not even available to the public!!
    *Squirrel Glider poles! How on earth is this good enough, these gliders need trees, not some token poles.

    It is my hope that this development can be dramatically reduced. It is inconceivable to me that this development could possibly be allowed by council with it's density and building height in this area! A large reduction would better enable this community to continue to function as a seaside community where people are happy with their surrounds and houses are built with environment and community in mind.
    I feel strongly that council and JRRP should have supported the communities objections to this development much more strongly. The fact that the developer has come back with a barely changed proposal is an outrage.
    Regards
    Karyn Huizing

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

    Stephen Hobbs commented

    I would like to object the development DA/1774/2013 as I have done previously in a prior submission as the infrastructure there is not adequate to support the extra traffic as a result of this development. Dudley road has increasingly become a bottle neck since the proposed site for development has been fenced off with a lack of parking being evident and cars being forced to park on Dudley road down near the bridge. As a result I have had several close calls with cars coming in the opposite direction as the road is not wide enough and the shops car park is not big enough. Maybe some of the land should be put aside to increase the shops parking.
    Furthermore, the developer has not made the recommended changes and there is to many buildings, that are to high on this block of land. It is not in line with the surronding residential areas, and it seems to me that the lands zoning was changed to accomadate this development.
    I would not like this type of monstrosity at my back fence and do not look forward to the traffic congestion that this type of overdevelopment will produce. I believe that a fair result would be to look at the number of houses between Dudley road and kopa st and double it, make provisions for some extra shop parking and include a green space/corridor that all can use.
    In conclusion, I am not opposed to development, just this over development and our community wishes to be treated with due respect. It would be nice to feel like we have some say in what happens in our community, the community we live in and care for.

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

    Beau Rouse commented

    I resubmit in opposition to this development with the same concerns I raised in my last submission, as these concerns have not been ameliorated.

    I oppose this development in it's current form as it is inappropriate for the site and location. Other new town houses built in the area are a reasonable two storey height. My understanding is that these plans exceed the Lake Macquarie City Council 10m height limit for buildings by 3m. Most importantly, the density proposed for this site does not align with the vision shared by LMCC and residents when this area of land was rezoned.

    Furthermore, the revised plans do not comply with conditions set out by the Joint Regional Planning Panel. This non compliance should result in this development being rejected.

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

    Jodie Davis commented

    My previous concerns I've raised still hold true as the revised plans submitted by the developer has not addressed the issues raised. My concerns include:
    - Failure to provide adequate visitor parking in an already congested area;
    - Lack of additional parking for the shopping and Fernleigh Track areas adjacent;
    - The excessive height of the development which goes against legislated limits of 10m, against the character of the area and contributing to unsupported density in a neighbourhood centre. Comparing this development to the local high school in this regard is not a suitable yardstick. The negative visual impact of the development as proposed will be significant and long lasting.
    - Failure to acknowledge the existence of the squirrel glider, a threatened species which likely uses the wildlife corridor and crossing point at this site.

    Additionally the developers lack of compliance with the JRPP's conditions from the meeting on 23 July (which I was unable to attend due to work and family commitments) shows a lack of respect for the process and the community and should result in rejection.

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

    Michelle Burdekin commented

    To The General Manager of LMCC

    Dear Sir,

    A final consideration in regard to SNL's arguments for not acquiescing to the JRPP's calls for very modest changes in view of the extreme flexibility granted to this development to go beyond the legislated planning controls. The 'rhythm' which will allegedly be disrupted in design terms, apart from being an arguable point is, quite frankly, an incredibly minor point amid the cacophonous clash provided by the inappropriate scale and impact of the development in total.

    The considerations for this DA have been so weighted to questions of design that they have ignored much more substantial matters. The euphemisms employed to disguise the totally inappropriate response to the 7(2) conservation land can not soften what is an unthinkable response by council regarding its obligation to achieve the objectives of this zone.

    Michelle Burdekin

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

    Michelle Burdekin commented

    To the General Manager LMCC,
    Dear Sir,
    I stand by my earlier submissions even though I realise they have not had any impact on the decision-making processes at LMCC. What I, and many others deemed reasonable responses to concerns about planning, social and environmental issues attending this development were ignored by council who dismissed what we had thought were valid concerns as irrelevant and insignificant.
    This time around, I will tell you a story instead, because I have read the story written by LMCC in their assessment to the JRPP and realise now that this is what one must do to be believed. It was the use of word “embellishment”, used by council in their suggested treatment of land in the 7(2) zone, and the denial of the likely existence of threatened species that has pushed me to this point.
    It is called, “If Only”.

    Once upon a time, there was an aging prince who like nothing more than to ride across the kingdom on his burnished steed, his keen eye surveying all it beheld. He was especially watchful for beautiful spots on which to use his special powers to build homes for the peasants of his lands. He took his duty to others deeply into his heart and would do whatever it took to make the dreams of those who loved him come true.
    He was helped along the way by all sorts of minions who were keen to do his bidding because they were touched by his generosity and love for mankind. They were kept ever so busy hithering and thithering to transform all his wishes into magic words and then from magic words to spells that turned wood and stones and other wondrous stuffs into houses.
    Along the way some forgot themselves, either worn out and tired from years and years of weaving work or slightly crazed by the magnificence of what they could achieve. They became a little giddy and the words changed from spells of good magic to curses which would lie in wait to fall on others who happened by the spots where they had been.
    One day the prince rode further from his castle than usual and came to a more distant place, a place near the sea, a place where a forest ran alongside the open hill on which his eye had lit, a place of gentle folk who cared about each other. These peasant folk were unknown to him and they had already delved, lumbered wood and heaved rocks to furnish themselves with modest dwellings alongside the vast field of his future dreams, and all without his help.
    He approached them boldly with his glittering plans for many, many new and tall homes that he would place upon the land now beneath his feet, land under which slumbered a sleeping dragon who had been resting quietly since the dwarves of yesteryear had laid down their picks to head for the mines beyond the mountain ranges and into the west. Land where rare and timid creatures hid in the forest only venturing out at night. A land where the people were trusting and kind and had a gesture of putting out both their hands to the side to imitate a set of scales for they were wont to remind themselves of balance in all things. It had worked more truly than any other system they had known. But of these things he did not know.
    Unfamiliar with each other’s ways, the meeting did not go well. The villagers had been used to being asked, not told, and from the laws that governed their lands they had understood that such a thing should not be done for it would tilt the balance by which they lived.
    The Prince was shocked for he was used to the sound of clapping and cheering when he shared his dreams. The people were perplexed. His dreams were not their dreams, their dreams were not his. What could be done?
    The Prince approached the chamber of the local Keepers of Knowledge and told to them his wishes. They listened but wanted to know more. His minions then went to the Keepers and wove their magic words around and around until they were bedazzled. The people were kept outside the chambers and by the time the words flew out some magic had been lost and curses crept into the weft and weave of the fine-grained tales told. The people didn’t see the magic as much as they felt the curses.
    They shivered and clung to each other for comfort. They were not, however, cowards and summoned the courage to creep into the Chambers and read the arcane texts that held much power when used by the right people, texts that spoke to them of the laws. Sadly for the folk of the village, they didn’t have the talisman that unlocked the power to enact these laws. Each new truth they unearthed in the chamber was quickly hidden again under more magic words from the minions.
    The Prince, seeing that the people had grown wary and distrustful of him humbled himself and hopped down off his high and burnished horse and stood among them, on the ground. He suddenly felt the mighty effect of their creed of balance and their love for the gentle lives they led, care for the forest creatures and each other. Finally, he understood a new thing.
    “Goodness,” he declared, “is not mine alone to decree. Minions cease your magic words for I can clearly see that they have built a hazy gauze between the dream and the reality. Together we will get as many of the elements in these new peasant homes that the locals are wanting, with the exception of bringing the dwellings down to half the number, we shall find a balance again. And, we will enhance the forests where the creatures live and travel. More homes for peasants, more trees for creatures, more trust in laws than in magic.’’
    And saying this, the curses that had flown from bent words dropped and turned to diamonds of truth. The minions stopped spinning and saw the world as it was, glorious and glittering without their tainted magic. The Keepers, clutching their books of laws saw them more clearly than they had before. The people were content.
    Holding one diamond in each hand the Prince was replete with satisfaction that he had made everyone happy and had harmed no one.

    The End.

    Regards,
    Michelle Burdekin

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

  30. 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

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