Dear Planning Authority Staff,
While we appreciate this Proposal has endeavored to minimize valuable vegetation removal, we have concerns that there is potential for further compromise of primary koala and other wildlife habitat and connectivity in the immediate area. Adjacent wildlife habitat has undergone recent extensive significant modification and loss due to Coffs Bypass construction activities at Lindsay's Cutting and to the east and south. While we appreciate the findings of the BDAR are based on the condition of the adjacent environment when the surveys were undertaken, and at that time found little evidence of wildlife / koala presence within the boundaries of the subject property; we are concerned the situation may well change between now and DA approval and construction, and urge the Authority to carefully consider offset and VMP proposals in the light of a changing broader environment.
All recent comments on applications from Coffs Harbour City Council, NSW
This was never an existing “farm shed”. It was purpose built to run a plumbing business which employs staff and runs at least 5 vehicles daily accessing the shed via a new driveway close to a bend in the road. The development has already installed three water tanks within two meters from the side boundary and has a new septic system to accommodate workers. (Not, as stated, an extra water storage tank. It is a case of someone knowing how to get what they want by creating the development and then later applying for planning permission.
Dear Council Staff,
While engineering drawings are provided showing details of the upgraded revised fire trail in this DA, there are no notes or details regarding the crossing of the middle (Burgess Creek) and impacts on protected vegetation including a VMP. Given our particular concern with establishment, enhancement and long term maintenance of a connecting wildlife corridor between Crossmaglen Road and North Bonville Road, we feel this is an important oversight.
We apologise for the lateness of this submission, but received no notification as per usual channels.
Regards Dave Wood
This application is way too late. The outdoors area and the container has been there for about 6 weeks. Was it done without consultation to Council?
Concerned about the high density housing. 36 new homes and one would assume 2 cars per house thats 72 cars in a very short street ,also moonee creek road as well as the other new estates being developed.. There is no pedestrian access on moonee beach road and also no designated bus stop even though the local buses stop near the childcare centre which obstructs cars using that second lane.
There is a lot of development but with no infrastructure to support the development
I have noticed on the Statement of environmental effects, that the applicant has ticked yes to questions 13, 14 & 15 but has given no details of the expected effects. I would like to have more information on these factors please.
Dear Ms Davidson & Mr Coaldrake,
Thank you for your attention regarding this issue. While I would love to see more homes available for the community, I don't believe the benefit outweighs the cost in this instance. The concerns listed above are also concerns of mine.
Community spaces are invaluable, particularly in these increasingly modern and socially isolating times. Instead I would like to see more community development such as a playground and barbecue area. Coffs and surroundings are very low on play areas for children and families. Having lived some years in Dubbo I am very surprised by the lack of such facilities in here. The Boambee, Sawtell, Toormina region is particularly bereft.
Kind regards,
Meagan and family
I object to this development because of the numerous issues raised about this development application in the objection document by Boambee East Community Centre in its document here:
https://becc.org.au/boambee-east-community-centre-objection/.
I also object to this development because if the points raised by Penny Davidson in her comment, relating to changing the land use from Community for the access road, and particularly the evident omission of important information in the application. I am also greatly concerned that the developers are Sydney based and the profits will not remain in the Coffs Harbour area. I am concerned that the applicant Richard Benell has previously worked as a town planner for Coffs City Council and is still called in under contract to work for them. This is a conflict of interest that has not been disclosed. There is an evident history of previous Coffs Council employees being granted permission for DAs "easily". I am concerned that the plots are very small and the housing will be crowded. I am concerned that a community title is included in the development. I am concerned about this for a number of reasons. Firstly, the Community Title is used to maintain the fire trail. Community fees paid by the residents cover admin fees for a management company, and insurance fees for communal areas. One of the blocks will be attached to a Biodiverity site and will be responsible for upkeep of the protected bush which will be negotiated with NSW govt for koala habitat protection. In previous developments like this the block with the biodiversity attached has been treated like a semi rural block, and have not had access to storm water drainage and a fire hydrant. There are complications with removal of dangerous trees with NSW Biodiversity and Coffs Council both having to approve tree removal, and both having different requirements and policies. In previous developments trees have been kept along the fenceline of neighbouring residential properties and cause problems with root systems and danger of falling branches and trees. The owner of the biodiversity is left with this liability, despite being forced to keep the trees.
I am greatly concerned that this development will be rushed through with a sub quality application and poor infrastructure.
No community consultation was held, despite Rick Benell being instructed by Coffs Council to hold community consultation. Apparently Rick Benell's word that he held community consultation is enough. No documentation was required. When a Council operates in this way with a previous employee there are many concerns.
I object to this development because of the numerous issues raised about this development application in the objection document by Boambee East Community Centre in its document here:
https://becc.org.au/boambee-east-community-centre-objection/.
In particular, I am concerned about the proposed access road from Bruce King Drive which would traverse existing community land and impact significantly on the safety and enjoyment of the land surrounding the community garden and community centre for:
- visitors to the community centre who participate in the community programs that are facilitated both within the centre and on the grounds surrounding the centre, including a number of programs for those experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, children's play groups, and baby health;
- visitors to and gardeners working in the community garden;
- the large numbers of community members who attend the Boambee East Community Centre's Annual Winter Solstice Festival;
- families and children using the swings located near the community garden or the open areas to ride their bikes or play outdoor games; and
- community members using the public reserve area to exercise and to walk their dogs, particularly those who prefer to exercise their dogs off lead in the area.
I am also against this proposed development because the proposed access road from Bruce King Drive would include the clearing of nearly 4,600m2 of native
vegetation, including:
- 3,000m2 of Prime Koala Habitat;
- threatened ecological communities; and
- several specifies identified as being at risk of serious and irreversible impact, including the endangered Floyd's Grass and the Black grass-dart butterfly, which occur only on the NSW mid north coast from Coffs Harbour to Scotts Head.
I have concerns about the legality of building the access road to Bruce King Drive through community land and I have significant concerns about the willingness of the development's proponents to comply with legislated requirements.
As the proponent has failed to address so many areas required by legislation to be included in such a submission, it begs the question: is the proponent incompetent or is the abundance of missing information a deliberate act of omission. If it's the latter, it raises questions about the proponent's willingness to comply with any conditions imposed if approval is given.
Will this potentially create even more of a hazard with traffic, considering there is insufficient parking now for Staff at the nursing facility and locals are constantly having near misses due to insufficient road access for traffic flow in either direction.
Current state is dangerous and only a matter of time before we have an incident around this area.
Thank you for providing the Planning Alert for the intro of an asphalt plant on Englands Road (Reference 0364/23DA). Please advise strategy for:
(a) Reduction of noise and dust, (b) Traffic Management Plan for Englands Rd, (c) Traffic Management Plan for Hwy intersection, (d) How access to Tip will be managed / maintained and (e) Who will be responsible for maintaining and restoring Englands Rd during the period of operation of the asphalt plant.
I would like to see an elevation view from Ocean Parade looking east that identifies the building height relationship for 6, 8 and 10 Ocean Parade.
The information is already available, as shadow diagrams have been generated
Objection if the poles are located on the curb on the eastern side of First Ave and on the southern side of Twenty-First Avenue. The view south up the hill as you drive out of Twenty-First Ave north into First Ave is already obstructed at times. Especially so when cars and vans are parked on the eastern side nearly to the corner of Twenty-First and First Avenues.
Are the trees on the site remaing
I hope car parking for residents of the 6 apartments has been taken into account. Sawtell already has a street parking issue around the beach area. This block will go from one family to 6 families with a possible change from 2 cars to 12!
This looks like a great idea. I hope it will also include an upgrade to the parking area too and additional rubbish bins.
This proposal looks very sympathetically planned within the context of the neighbourhood.
We believe this amended 8/22 DA is an improvement in regard to the koala and other wildlife habitat and corridor connectivity within the property but also through the adjacent broader landscape and a more logical use of offset planting.
We expect that public access via a walking, bicycle, horse trail be maintained between Crossmaglen Road, Bakker Dr and North Bonville Rd.
Thankyou
The toilets need to be open and available to the general public, not just Cafe patrons. The Cafe is open intermittently and not every day. They should include the same range of facilities (toilets, disability access, showers and change rooms for males and females) as were available in the old toilet block. Facilities have gone backwards with the new beachside facilities, except for the kid'splayground. Poor planning and too much public money into a surf club that is not used to it's full potential.
This needs to be a true public facility not just for cafe patrons open all hours as per playground facility.
Well this is a great idea, I have avoid this area due to the fact there are no facilities close especially when you have children or elderly with medical problems that need these facilities close, I also hope a disability toilet will be considered, or a large toilet with disability railings ect.
There is a 30 metre lemon scented gum tree on the boundary,This is not mentioned in the submitted EIS .There are no fences between 3 and 5 Darkum Road presently
I’m supportive of this application. The more opportunity our local families have to learn sustainable camping the better. These types of campsites are perfect for weekend getaways for busy families with young children. Far enough away to be an adventure and feel one with nature, but easy to get home if the young ones aren’t coping.
Given the opportunity I’m sure everyone will respect the environment.
18 Macdougall Street
Corindi Beach 2456
We think that the entry/exit for this subdivision should NOT be onto Tasman Street. Tasman Street is already too narrow with a blind bend, it is the main entry to Corindi Beach as well as to Red Rock and has many traffic movements. Perhaps it could be onto Coral Street behind the Amble Inn hotel or out onto Solitary Islands Way.
No further of our precious native vegetation on the western side of Tasman Street should be destroyed in the construction of this development.
Yours Sincerely
Jennifer and Len Kenna
Would you please answer the following questions:
* My understanding was the original blocks had all been sold, is this a purchaser who I now attempting to subdivide these blocks further?
* Where will these new blocks be located in relation to the original subdivision?
* Where will all blocks in this development gain vehicle access and on to which street?
* What are the size of the blocks now and the size of the blocks if this modification is passed?