All recent comments on applications from Central Coast Council, NSW

Given the position of this childcare centre, and the current traffic congestion on Wallarah Road during peak hours - the road is virtually gridlocked - a childcare centre is totally inappropriate and unworkable for this position. This is a one lane major road, and will turn nearby quiet roads such as Manuka Parade, The Corso, and Mary Street, which are not capable of carrying heavy traffic, into major thoroughfares as people attempt to bypass the traffic that will increase on Wallarah Road.

I think it's a great development not too many levels.. and can change the demographics of the Area..don't think retail is needed.. As too many empty shops at the entrance..
Lakeside plaza development never happened.. will see if this is another dead project...

This project seems far too big to me, first more than 400 units, what kind of people are we trying to bring here? Why not cut that down to 100 luxurious units which already seems like a lot to me. 11 shops is not a smart choice when half The Entrance center is empty and for rent. Traffic in the bypass can already be busy, how is this will be manageable with this amount of people considering at least 2 cars per household. The ground is fragile because of the floods, its wet, digging into it to build carparks is only going to make it worse with a good chance of those carpark flooding easily. All I see is a quiet area which is enjoyable to all people and family all year around turned into a chaotic city like area. Tonnes of more waste and rubbish probably ending up in the lake as most people do not respect the environment, wildlife will have to move away too. High rise buildings arent a good choices for this area it will block all sun for all people living on Manning road, it will also bring a large amount of noise. Council will have to invest a lot of money to accomodate this amount of people, will have to fix every roads around and build extra lanes to ease traffic. The grandeur of this project should be reduced to something more realistic bringing better people around, more wealthy people so they can bring more value to The Entrance.

The block of land is too small to occupy a secondary dwelling of the proposed size, moreover it would be an eyesore and out of place on the street and further congest parking, particularly during school hours and affect neighbours incoming light.

I strongly object to this application for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the impact it will have on surrounding properties. The height and scale of this proposal is not fitting to the location suggested. It would create a barrier between the lake area and all other residences in close proximity, blocking not only sunlight but also views available to numerous locations in the area.
.
Traffic would be a constant issue with all local properties already under strain, this would be multiplied 10 fold with the addition of so many units and retail space. Priority should be given to developing the town centre and filling the vacant spaces currently there before building something of this magnitude. We do not want the town to become a high rise community ruining the views and feel of the area.

Firstly, we need an extension to the notification end date to allow those people who don’t know about this. Only five notifications were sent out for an issue that affects the whole community and all visitors. * see also last paragraph about CCC’s website submission access difficulty.
We are facing a critical challenge that threatens the identity and amenity of our rural district.
Application Number DA/1060/2023 proposes the construction of a Machinery Shed & Ancillary Rural Supplies (Concrete Pipes & Structures) operation at 315 Greta Road, Kulnura, NSW 2250. This application raises significant concerns that directly impact our community's well-being and the environment we hold dear.
Back on 24 August 2021, a planning officer Stephen Ryan was managing the removal of the pipes, because it was an illegal operation.
Our neighbour, Murray Harris received a call from Stephen Ryan, who had a look by aerial photograph of the property at 315 Greta Road, as per discussion with Murray. He stated that he was “horrified” by the proliferation of the pipes. He closed the conversation with, “We’re on to it”. This needs an explanation. Who in Council decided that it became okay without any consultation.
It’s not just a machinery shed, which, in itself, sounds quite innocuous. Approving this DA will deleteriously impact this region.
There’s no detail in this DA to explain exactly what their business is all about. Currently it’s buying, storing, and selling. This means heavy trucks too. If allowed, it will grow larger and become more onerous. It will become an industrial stain on our rural landscape and an assault on our eyes.
This objection is in response to the owners of the property seeking approval for Application Number DA/1060/2023. Previously, they were granted permission to expand their poultry farm. However, we now have serious concerns regarding the potential impacts on water safety and the environment. The owners are currently bringing in thousands of industrial-sized concrete pipes on large trucks from Sydney, which is not only damaging to public rural roads but also incongruous with the pristine rural landscape. The accumulation of these concrete pipes on the property for commercial sale raises significant issues. By this objection, we are voicing our opposition to the potential threats posed to water safety and the environment by the transportation and commercialisation of these concrete pipes.
There are three primary issues that warrant our objection to this development proposal:
1. Road Safety and Heavy Truck Traffic Generation: Greta and Springs Roads, the local traffic arteries, are ill-equipped to handle heavy B-Double trucks. The proposed operation would significantly increase truck traffic, creating hazardous conditions for locals, tourists, and other road users. Despite the applicant's claim of only 1 to 2 trucks per week, our daily observations reveal the current truck volume already reaching 1 to 2 trucks per day. This poses a severe threat to road safety and demands immediate attention.

2. Environmental Concerns and Nature Conservation: Our area falls under the RU1 Primary Production zone, primarily designated for promoting agricultural production and environmental protection. The proposed Machinery Shed & Ancillary Rural Supplies operation stands as an eyesore, inconsistent with the rural landscape, and incongruous with the intended purpose of our zone. This type of heavy industrial operation is more appropriately situated in areas such as Somersby Industrial Area, where heavy industry is better suited. We must preserve our environment and protect the integrity of our rural community.

3. Hazardous Materials and Water Pollution: The use of weathering recycled concrete aggregates in the proposed operation raises significant concerns regarding potential water pollution. Elements such as aluminium, arsenic, barium, chromium, lead, manganese, molybdenum, titanium, lithium, and strontium have the potential to leach into our groundwater supply. This poses a direct threat to the quality of the water we consume and compromises the health and well-being of our community. Source: CSIRO Publishing: “Potential water pollution from recycled concrete aggregate material”. We must ensure the preservation of our drinking water sources and prevent any contamination risks.
We urge you to join our efforts in objecting to Application Number DA/1060/2023, as it jeopardizes our road safety, environment, and water supply. Together, we can make a difference and safeguard our community's interests.
o Water Pollution and Catchment Area: The proposed development is situated in a catchment area that supplies 43% of the Central Coast's drinking water. Furthermore, the property where the development is taking place is located on a ridge, with the land sloping downwards towards the south, from Greta Road. This geographical configuration raises significant concerns regarding potential water pollution. Academic articles have demonstrated that runoff from crushed concrete can result in water pollution. The proximity of the proposed development to Dead Horse Creek, which feeds directly in a southerly direction towards the Central Mangrove Landfill area and Ourimbah Weir, exacerbates the potential negative impacts on water quality. We must be vigilant in preserving the purity of our water sources and prevent any contamination risks.
o Jiliby Conservation Area and Environmental Impact: It is important to note that the proposed development is immediately adjacent to the Jiliby Conservation Area. The land in question falls away from Greta Road to the south. Given its location on a plateau and within a catchment area, any negative effects resulting from this development could have far-reaching consequences. The potential spread and leaching of water impurities from concrete pipes and crushed concrete pose a significant risk to local water sources. This not only threatens the delicate ecological balance of the Jiliby Conservation Area but also compromises the water quality that sustains our community.
• I would also like to add that depending on how you access the CCC website (Type of application, DA# or address) to make a submission, you may or may not access a page where you can make a submission. Note, on the next page, this search leaves you on the correct page, but without a “make a submission” tab. This is misleading and would cause many users to give up.

Environmental damaging to area, water ways, land and the communities. In an area where cattle a roam and graze why put a feed lot in. Beside the cruelty to animals thee is enough space in this area for animals to feed in paddocks. Cruel, damage to cultural sites and environmental disaster.

"Co-living apartments" is code for boarding house.

I strongly object to a development of this nature!!! It is NOT needed on the Woy Woy Peninsula.

I would like to know what the ratio is of public and rent assisted housing versus private rentals. We already have far too many public housing properties for the size of the area.

What about the high number of backyard cabins being built... these are affordable rentals.

We have seen massive growth in the area recently, both positive and negative. The impact of this proposal will certainly be negative.

The rental charges on the Woy Woy Peninsula are extremely reasonable. We are being inundated with cheap housing options. We do NOT need more. This boarding house will attract more crime and anti-social behaviour. Do we need more welfare dependent individuals here?

Our infrastructure systems are already stressed.

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter what the rate payers want. Rik Hart is only interested in lining his own pockets and big noting himself. We don’t have a council and therefore Rik Hart does whatever he likes with total disregard for the residents. Don't forget Rik Hart is not a resident of the Central Coast. He lives on Sydney's Northern Beaches and sees Woy Woy as a dumping ground for undesirables.

I am keen to improve the entrance however this is too many units and retail shops for the site. The building will overshadow the pool area of riviera, the building to the west of the site. The windows along the western side of the proposal should have permanent privacy screens to shield the privacy of the adjacent pool and rooftop areas. Ideally there would not be westerly facing windows at all. The new building should be the same height as riviera.
The street parallel to the entrance rd , manning rd regularly floods. Having storm water runnoff plans / sumps for the increased hard surfaces to prevent worse flooding of adjacent streets and garages is essential for this development proposal.
The traffic should be kept away from the entrance road and tuggerah pde as they have a lot of pedestrian traffic This area is important to keep for pedestrian traffic including children who use the park and fishing access. The carpark access should be from manning rd.
More retail shops that are empty will be an eyesore and a risk for vandalism. Retail spaces in the main street of the entrance are empty and cannot be filled. Careful planning of the use of the new retail areas should occur to ensure they are attractive with out door eateries undercover with methods in place to contain noise associated for existing residents.
With the housing shortages ideally there should be inclusion of long term rental housing at reduced rental for essential workers and increased public transport links. Ideally the area would benefit from Re instigation of entertainment such as a cinema in the proposal.

Whilst I overall support the development of the area, I am concerned about the following issues that need to be addressed:

Road infrastructure: The plans indicate that there are 169 retail shop car spaces and 386 residential car spaces. There are two entrances to the car park - one on the corner Oakland Ave and Bent St and the other via Clifford St off Tuggerah Pde. To access these parking entrances, you have the following issues:

1. cnr of Oakland Ave and Coral St is already difficult to enter / exit into Oakland Ave - thus, the council will need to either put in a set of traffic lights or a proper round about.

2. Oakland Ave between Coral St and The Entrance Rd is constantly requiring pothole Maintenace. This has been an ongoing problem for years. The Council must completely rebuild this segment of the road - especially given the trucks that will be used to supply the retail shops and remove the retail waste will use this segment of road.

3. cnr Tuggerah Pde and Manning Rd constantly floods during rain. The Council needs to raise the level of Tuggerah Pde - else when if floods, the traffic will simply be diverted back to Oakland Ave (refer to the issues above).

Building A (noting that I have a residence within the Riviera Apartments).
1. Retail Shop entrance: If I am reading the plans correctly, there is 9000 between building A and the boundary boarding Riviera. Along this 9000 is one of the 3 retail shop entrances. We are concerned about the impact the foot traffic will have on the residents of the Riviera apartments who live on that boundary line. We would request that this particular retail shop entrance be removed or limited to be only a fire exit (ie never in use except for an emergency).

2.Riviera privacy:
(a) Riviera pool: Building A has windows along the boundary boarding Riviera pool, meaning that residents of Building A can watch the activities in the Riveria pool - negatively impacting the Riviera resident's privacy.
(b) Riviera Rooftop Terrace: Building A is approx 4 floors higher than the Riviera apartments. Building A has windows along the boundary boarding Riviera meaning that residents of Building A can watch the activities in the Riveria rooftop terraces - negatively impacting the Riviera resident's privacy.

We request that the Building A windows along the boundary boarding Riviera be removed to ensure that the privacy of the Riveria residents be maintained.

In regard to this building application I would like to mention my concerns. We border the proposed development and are worried that the size of the concrete slab and removal of so many trees will cause drainage issues during construction and when complete. There is already a mosquito problem in this area and it can only get worse if the natural drainage of this area is reduced to this extent. Colin Wood.

We need this development NOT like we need a wider opening at the Entrance more. The infrastructure can not handle it. It will become another high rise for government housing which we don't need any more off. This is not the Gold Coast.

This is a massive development (217 units) relative to everything around it. It is essentially high density dwellings in the middle of a low density suburb. Population growth must be matched with improvements to infrastructure. This seems an unnecessary jump in development size.

These tower buildings will change the landscape and appeal of Long Jetty and will create more traffic problems and set a deplorable precedent for future developments. Traffic congestion is already a major problem which the council needs to address.
Long Jetty is an up-and-coming residential precinct, and people love living here. This project will lower the ambience of the whole area and property prices may drop.
The environmental impact needs to be carefully considered as does the height of the buildings which will create high density in a quiet suburban area.
One essential problem is parking as no parking is included. Where will residents park?
Also, who will live in these blocks with no parking - vagrants? Parking is essential in a suburban area.
Also, it will not be in line with community needs.
Please consider this project carefully as it doesn't meet the current guidelines, does not have enough required green space, and should not be approved in its current state. If they halved the number of units - lowered the buildings to only 3 stories in height, and included parking for residents, this may go some way towards meeting the current guidelines.

This tower structure will change the landscape of Long Jetty and will not be in line with the community needs and appeal. No parking included in this application - where are these residents parking ? Drive through Long Jetty on any day of the week and you will see the traffic congestion already present. CCC cannot consider approving such a development.

This proposed project will affect the privacy of the units in Number 1 Tuggerah parade. 414 units are an overkill for this quiet lakeside area. The idea of development is great but should be of a density proportionate to the area. A smaller scale with retail would be better.

The proposal could and should be redrafted so as to reduce this oversized box (proposed to be 12.42 m in height and using close to 2/3 of the site - including the pool). This may require the loss of one of the 5 bedrooms and the pool. There are no floor plans on exhibition so I am unable to make any further suggestions….
This needs to be done in order to create a proposal that is more sympathetic to the streetscape and the look of Pearl Beach.
Pearl Beach is characterised by the number of canopy trees and indeed this is important for the retention of wildlife especially close to the lagoon. This area in particular is characterised by a stand of Melaleuca Quinquenervia trees which are of great significance and add to the uniqueness of the landscape. The proposal certainly ignores this aspect.
In addition, the proposed development does not it address the fact that this land is prone to flooding. Indeed, it was waterlogged for much of 2022. The creation of substantial hard surface areas + a pool + the loss of many mature trees will have a significant impact on sensitive land in the vicinity of Pearl Beach Lagoon.

I agree with all the above comments. In particular, the proposed development appears not to take into account the following fundamental matters:

* The size of the proposed dwelling is out of character with the exiting streetscape of Agate Ave.
*The storm water management of the southern side of Agate Avenue is extremely poor with the CCC having no plans to improve the drainage. During the past La Nina episodes, the front yards from 3 Agate Ave to the intersection with Coral Cres were for months under water.
*The unnecessary and excessive destruction of the mature melaleuca quinquenervia trees.
* Blocking the sunlight for significant hours of the day to the adjacent dwellings on the northern and southern sides.

414 residential units is way to many for this area , I love the idea of something happening with this site but not something that is so over developed , parking is already tight in the area and needs to be strongly addressed with any development on this site or any others in the area

The Pearl Beach Environment Group (a subcommittee of the Pearl Beach Progress Association) is preparing a submission in response to this DA for 1 Agate Avenue.
We understand from a discussion with the CCC planning officer that the deadline for submissions is 24 May, but the DA website fails to provide this critical information. We have asked that our concern about this omission be recorded, and we note the advice in return that the website will be upgraded to include the deadline for submissions.
In preparing our submission we are also at a disadvantage because the documentation on the website does not include the landscape plan, despite the SEE referring to this. Nor do the architecturals include a ground floor plan, and we are unable to interpret the footprint of the proposed new residence (the roof plan erroneously notes the outline of the ground floor, which is in fact the footprint of the existing cottage). Moreover, there is no cross section or shadow diagrams included, which are essential in understanding the form and shadow impacts of the proposed residence.
We ask that this additional information be made available on the CCC website please.

When you come to Pearl Beach...enjoy our trees...build a single story "cute" holiday (??) cottage, to fit our environment, ...if you want to swim.. the beach is 100mm down the road.....Don't destroy the ambience of Pearl Beach. !!

This development looks to be maximising the allowed usage of the plot above all else. There appears to be no consideration for the environment to which it will be built. The trees behind the existing property provide an important ecological role within the native Pearl Beach environment in supporting the wildlife that live here and water management in an area that is often impacted by access water from the lagoon. A pool is also being included which increases the number of trees affected. All this for a house that will probably be occupied a few weeks a year at most.

With this development and all the others I have seen during the last 6 years in Pearl Beach, including the one next door at 3 Agate, I estimate that more than 200 trees have been removed from Pearl Beach in this short time. If this continues Pearl Beach will end up like Umina. If you buy in Pearl Beach and do this why not just buy something in Umina.

I do not support the development plans currently proposed for 1 Agate Ave Pearl Beach for the following reasons:

1. Pearl Beach waterways contain the most northerly example of the endangered Sydney ecological wetland system. I believe an Environmental Impact Statement would be required before any Melalueca Quinquenervia can be removed along this creek.

2. Agate Ave is prone to flooding. The houses on this side of the street can remain waterlogged for 6 months of the year. The 15 mature trees on this block, especially the melaluecas, assist ground water management. The melaleuca canopy partially intercepts and absorbs rainfall, preventing it from reaching the ground. The melaleuca leaf litter on the ground raises the soil level and assists the drying of waterlogged sites.

3. These trees also need protecting because they provide food, habitat and canopy for our diverse wildlife population.

4. A slab construction is not suitable for a flood prone block

5. The size of this development is not in keeping with the designation of Pearl Beach as a low density development area. It’s time Council adhered to the 40% footprint guideline for this area.

I would welcome an environmentally sensitive development on this site, where primary consideration was given to the health of the creek, the preservation of existing trees and a size not exceeding the 40% footprint.

We moved into Empire Bay in December 2019 and it became immediately evident that we did not have mobile phone coverage as we were unable to pay our removalist onsite using mobile EFTPOS terminal. This was an unexpected surprise having living on the Central Coast for many decades.

We subsequently arranged NBN service and use wi-fi calling which is not particularly reliable, however it does provide some service. However, apart from minor annoyances, the critical issue is that in the event of an emergency when we are out of wi-fi range and/or without power/internet, we cannot contact emergency services.

During the past three years we have had no less than three weather events which resulted in our having no power for >24-36 hours. In each case we had no mobile reception nor ability to contact emergency services in the event of a crisis. Considering the first event related to bushfire, the second to an East Coast low and major storm activity and the third to flooding - each of these events may have resulted in our needing emergency assistance. Only by pure luck were we spared of any major catastrophes.

This is not a matter of frustration, it is a matter of real concern - in 2023 in a modern country such as ours, not being able to call emergency services is our frightening reality.

We are very fortunate to be in general good health, however as we age and become more infirm, this service will have far greater significance. We are surrounded on three sides by neighbours who are into their later years, all of whom are extremely vulnerable without the ability to communicate in the event of a critical accident or event (when without power/internet).

It was with immense relief that we observed the tower's approval previously and are now incredulous at the decision having been overturned. We urge Council to approve the application to provide this critical mobile phone coverage and some peace of mind that our community can contact emergency services in the event of a crisis.

We are not against development of the site in general, however the house seems excessive in size and adversely impacts on the adjoining properties in particular but also on the immediate area. This new house will block out all direct afternoon sunlight for our entire backyard due to its size. Similarly, number 3 Agate Ave will have the same problem but in the morning to midday period. It seems unfair for two properties to both lose half their backyard sunlight due to the size of the new dwelling.

Our other concerns are:

Boundary - The eaves and gutters on the bottom level on both eastern and western sides of the of the house are too close to the boundary. The building code states this distance should be no less than 450mm.

Storm water- The roof water to be discharged to street. The street has general poor runoff, however with heavy rain, pools of water form regularly and remain for days at a time due to poor drainage. The grounds last year remained waterlogged for more than half a year. The additional rain water collected from this large house will exacerbate this problem, as will the loss of the Melaleucas which are known to help drain swampy soil.

Native wildlife and vegetation- There is concern of the removal of such a large number of established trees and the adverse effect on the native wild life. Melaleucas alone are an excellent windbreak and are a food source for a wide range of local insects and birds.

Pool - We are concerned by the impact of the pool overflowing and the damage caused to the environment by the chemicals used in the pool, which will end up on the front nature strip. The other impact of the pool is the extra background noise of the pumps on the neighbouring properties no matter where the pool and pumps are positioned.

Asbestos removal- Waste management plan indicates 0 volume of Asbestos. We believe there is asbestos due to the age of the current dwelling on the property. If this is the case there needs to be an asbestos waste management plan to safely remove the asbestos from site according to the relevant guidelines.