Here's a list of Councillor contacts
DA/419/2018 114-120 Cary Street -124 Dwellings
Invitations have gone out to give interested people the opportunity to talk directly to the Hunter and Central Coast Regional Planning Panel on the proposed 6-story development at 114-120 Cary Street, Toronto (next to Maccas). The event is 11/12/19 at 4pm in the Council Chambers.
You must register to speak by contacting the Planning Panels Secretariat before 4pm Monday 9 December 2019 on 02 8217 2060 or enquiry@planningpanels.nsw.gov.au
The mixed-use development includes a Residential Flat Building with 124 dwellings above 2872m2 commercial premises and two levels of basement carparking. The proponent has committed to additional off-site works including road widening of Arnott Ave, a cycleway and relocation of power lines.
DA/1692/209 Residential Care Facility & Demolition – 36 Laycock Street
Anglican Care has lodged their DA to demolish the Aged Care Facility (not the self-contained units) and rebuild on the existing footprint whilst retaining the mature corridor of trees on their southern boundary.
The design seeks to minimise the building bulk, cut and fill by breaking up the overall mass into four ‘wings’ radiating from central common facilities, and placing lower ground level parking under the northern and north western wings. Two care levels are provided over a parking level.
Some of the features are; 126 private rooms with ensuites, common areas (lounge, dining, activities rooms etc), day therapy areas (gym, salon, prayer room, treatment room etc), semi-basement car parking consisting 56 spaces, 15 at grade car parking spaces, café, entry / administration area (including new reception, offices, meeting rooms amenities etc).
DA/1865/2017 22 dwellings- 20 Laycock Street
The proposal to construct 22 units at 20 Laycock (behind the Carey Bay preschool) has
A letter has been drafted and is available for download and personalisation to assist the community to comment during this busy period.
The re-notification addresses the following issues: stormwater management so as not to burden the preschool with the site’s drainage, the retention of a tree corridor to support the movement of local wildlife and foraging habitat, targeted flora surveys to determine if threatened species were present, privacy impacts of adjacent residents and preschool, non-discriminatory accessibility, the visual impact on the community, parking and service area design, waste management plans and erosion & sediment control.
This DA is being put forward for the purposes of selling the land with an approved DA.
Although some revisions have been made from the previous application, there are several issues outstanding that conflict with community expectations at the apparent expense of financial considerations. A development such as this can be better designed so as to provide more green space, shared facilities and sustainable technologies even if the number of proposed units is reduced and their positioning modified.
Following are some of the concerns with the revised plans.
Retention of Corridor: Council officers state there is a need for a 8-10m wide corridor to provide security into the future and functionality and for foraging resources for a number of fauna species. The developer is proposing 2-5m. Only 7 trees of the 72 originally on the block are proposed to be left (many were taken out previously). Climate change elevates the importance of retaining habitat connectivity across the landscape for wildlife and avoid genetic inbreeding associated with isolated populations, the latter which also affects plants.
Privacy and topography: Council’s Landscape Assessment identifies units adjacent to the preschool being 2m above existing ground level with fencing providing no privacy and the site planning not responding to the topography of the site. Council is also recommending 1m wide landscaping along the access driveway to reduce the amenity impacts on the preschool.
Preschool safety: The developer states that the safety of children in the adjacent childcare centre is ‘of much less concern than many such situations’ such as heavy traffic in inner city commercial business districts. However, good planning should address such issues in advance and recognise their importance for the local community.
Visual Impact and community character: The developer describes the visual impact of the development as being consistent with ‘the emerging density character of the area’. However, there is only a small pocket of medium density zoning in Carey Bay. The one development, with minimal landscaping, adjacent to the shops does not constitute a trend and has not softened in the decade since completion. The area surrounding the development is low density housing on large bushland blocks, reinforcing the desirability of maintaining corridors.
Accessible units: The developer has designed ‘round-about’ style accommodation for their two accessible units located in the centre of the complex encircled by the internal access road, a poor design element for those with mobility challenges, a consequence of too many units being proposed for the site.
Energy Efficiency: The proposal only meets minimum energy efficiency requirements. More thoughtful design with perhaps little extra cost should be considered to incorporate best practice for sustainability, e.g. insulation for reduced heating and cooling and PV installation.
Bulk Scale and Size: An important outcome sought from such a medium density is also to ‘maintain and enhance the residential amenity and character of the surrounding area’. The bulk, scale and size of the current DA does not allow for this important consideration with no community space, very little green space and mostly hard surfaces.
On 25 November Councillor Harrison formally requested an update on the actions taken and planned for the Bath St site, following the decision to defer further work on the multistorey development. All we want for Christmas is an update and a timeline to alleviate cynicism.
The re-notification addresses the following issues: stormwater management so as not to burden the preschool with the site’s drainage, the retention of a tree corridor to support the movement of local wildlife and foraging habitat, targeted flora surveys to determine if threatened species were present, privacy impacts of adjacent residents and preschool, non-discriminatory accessibility, the visual impact on the community, parking and service area design, waste management plans and erosion & sediment control.
This DA is being put forward for the purposes of selling the land with an approved DA.
Although some revisions have been made from the previous application, there are several issues outstanding that conflict with community expectations at the apparent expense of financial considerations. A development such as this can be better designed so as to provide more green space, shared facilities and sustainable technologies even if the number of proposed units is reduced and their positioning modified.
Following are some of the concerns with the revised plans.
Retention of Corridor: Council officers state there is a need for a 8-10m wide corridor to provide security into the future and functionality and for foraging resources for a number of fauna species. The developer is proposing 2-5m. Only 7 trees of the 72 originally on the block are proposed to be left (many were taken out previously). Climate change elevates the importance of retaining habitat connectivity across the landscape for wildlife and avoid genetic inbreeding associated with isolated populations, the latter which also affects plants.
Privacy and topography: Council’s Landscape Assessment identifies units adjacent to the preschool being 2m above existing ground level with fencing providing no privacy and the site planning not responding to the topography of the site. Council is also recommending 1m wide landscaping along the access driveway to reduce the amenity impacts on the preschool.
Preschool safety: The developer states that the safety of children in the adjacent childcare centre is ‘of much less concern than many such situations’ such as heavy traffic in inner city commercial business districts. However, good planning should address such issues in advance and recognise their importance for the local community.
Visual Impact and community character: The developer describes the visual impact of the development as being consistent with ‘the emerging density character of the area’. However, there is only a small pocket of medium density zoning in Carey Bay. The one development, with minimal landscaping, adjacent to the shops does not constitute a trend and has not softened in the decade since completion. The area surrounding the development is low density housing on large bushland blocks, reinforcing the desirability of maintaining corridors.
Accessible units: The developer has designed ‘round-about’ style accommodation for their two accessible units located in the centre of the complex encircled by the internal access road, a poor design element for those with mobility challenges, a consequence of too many units being proposed for the site.
Energy Efficiency: The proposal only meets minimum energy efficiency requirements. More thoughtful design with perhaps little extra cost should be considered to incorporate best practice for sustainability, e.g. insulation for reduced heating and cooling and PV installation.
Bulk Scale and Size: An important outcome sought from such a medium density is also to ‘maintain and enhance the residential amenity and character of the surrounding area’. The bulk, scale and size of the current DA does not allow for this important consideration with no community space, very little green space and mostly hard surfaces.
What’s happening at Bath Street?
On 25 November Councillor Harrison formally requested an update on the actions taken and planned for the Bath St site, following the decision to defer further work on the multistorey development. All we want for Christmas is an update and a timeline to alleviate cynicism.
No comments:
Post a Comment