Mod 3 - Expand Site

The Perspectives illustrate an overwhelming development not in character with and having a detrimental impact on the existing street scape.

The contrasting design of the upper 3 levels emphasizes the overwhelming and uncertain character of the whole.

Accordingly the proposed increase in number of apartments should not be permitted.

Comparing MOD 3 (this application) to MOD 2:
The developer has bought 2 additional shops with current retail amenity to the public, and yet, only residential and communal space has increased.
** There is actually a 30 M2 square reduction in retail. There is only increase in residential and communal space.

This seems at odds with the whole proposition in the first place.

That is, the community at large did not feel that this scale of apartment complex was setting the right precedent for this area, nor was traffic around Havilah Lane and surrounds ready to or forecast to be realistically able to cope. There are plenty of submissions around this from the public from the initial application, and the traffic studies are not done by residents who know the area and travel through it frequently.

However, in the interests of revitalising the tired retail space that is currently there, the developer had to consider medium-high density residential to make it viable. This third modification once again only serves that purpose - the private developer's profitability.

Secondly, with the increased (actual and forecast) density in Lindfield,

* there is not one car space added per 1 or 2 bed additional apartment proposed (17 car spaces vs 19 additional apts) on the basis of its proximity to rail presumably the car parking overall will be deemed adequate, and yet,
* the state government has REDUCED trains stopping at Lindfield with the last set of timetable revisions in recent years.

How does this make any sense?

27.5.2105

Attention: Director - Key Site Assessments
To: Planning Services
Department of Planning & Environment

I write in relation to MP 08_0244 MOD 3, Application for Development at 23-41 Lindfield Avenue and 7 & 11 Havilah Lane, Lindfield.

There are several aspects of MOD 3 to this DA which, I suggest, should be rejected, as they are CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST TEST:
(a) another reduction in retail space, at this key site next to the railway station; and
(b) another increase in the number of residential units, with a reduction in the ratio of parking places relative to number of residential units, in an area of existing traffic/parking issues.

(a) Retail space

The land subject to this DA is directly opposite the entrance to Lindfield railway station. Part of the original DA and approval was the provision of retail space appropriate to the location of the site. Retail space is an amenity for the general community totally befitting this significant site. But this DA will reduce the number of retail outlets here that have serviced this area for many decades.

If this DA is to provide (as it should) community amenity - and that means the wider community of several suburbs whose residents use the Lindfield station precinct for shopping & public transport - then there should be an increase in retail space provided in this DA, not a reduction. Such an increase in retail space would be readily achievable in MOD 3, as MOD 3 involves an increase in the overall footprint of the site - an ideal opportunity for increased (ground-floor at least) retail space, compared with what is provided for in the current DA.

The sad history of retail space (in square metres) in this DA is as follows:

Original DA: 4,231
MOD 1: 2,379
MOD 2: 2,750
MOD 3: 2,720 (proposed)

This is a key site for the community of Lindfield and surrounding suburbs, and that community should not be deprived of the ongoing amenity of substantial retail facilities on this site. No further reduction in retail space on the site should be permitted.

(b) Number of residential units vs. number of car parking spaces

As was already raised at the PAC hearing into MOD 2 of this DA, the number of trains stopping at Lindfield station was reduced dramatically in the timetable changes introduced in October 2013.

The number of trains stopping at Lindfield station in the morning & afternoon peak periods, combined, was reduced at that time from 135 trains per day to 105 trains per day - a reduction of almost 25 per cent in the commuter rail "service" at Lindfield.

But, totally at odds with the reduction in public transport services, MOD 3 to this DA seeks to bring the increase in the number of residential units on this site, to over 50 per cent above what was originally approved, as follows:

Original DA: 91
MOD 1: 112
MOD 2: 122
MOD 3: 141 (proposed)

And, along with the increase in the number of residential units, the DA has progressively provided for a smaller number of residential car parking spaces relative to the overall number of units.

With the increased footprint of the site, following the recent acquisition of two additional shops, it is to be expected that there would be an increase in the number of residential units. But, as indicated above, that should not come at the expense of retail space. And the developer should not be permitted to provide inadequate car parking spaces for the residential units: traffic flows and parking space are already under pressure in this section of Lindfield.

In summary:
I would earnestly submit that, ON THE BASIS OF PUBLIC COMMUNITY INTEREST,
MOD 3 of this DA should NOT be approved, without a requirement that the AREA OF RETAIL SPACE BEING PROVIDED MUST BE INCREASED back to at least the area provided for in MOD 2 - or ideally closer back to that provided for in the original DA, when the overall size of the development was very much smaller.

Thank you.

Judy Butlin

We need as much retail space as we can get. The original application had already too little retail space, and now there is to be further reduction. I hope you will require the applicants to revise upwards their retail space area.

The reduction in Retail Space and parking are such as to reduce the amenity of the development for local and nearby residents.
Additional opportunities for profit for the developer should be offset by improvements to the area for local residents who will be adversely affected by increased traffic, noise and reduced parking availability. In addition this proposal will see a sharp reduction in existing retail availability to the detriment of the amenity available to the many elderly residents.

I object to the reduction in retail space and the inadequate car parking provision.

I object to more residential units at the loss of commercial space. We need shops near to the station, both for locals and for all the commuters who use our suburb. This plan should stay as it was in the original plan.

I wish to make the following submission.

My belief is that we must continue to renew the obsolete areas of our built environment . Otherwise our city becomes increasingly backward.

So I support the fact that the rather dilapidated Lindfield (east side) shopping centre is to be redeveloped. The sooner it is completed the better.

However I am amazed that the retail area in the new development is constantly being reduced in each revised design. About 2 years ago, when the shop closures began, the IGA supermarket was surrounded by the following retail outlets

1. Chemist
2. Travel Agent
3. Doctor
4. Fruit and Vegetables
5. Bakery
6. Fish & Chips
7. Delicatessen
8. Fresh Chicken Supplies
9. Butcher
10. Hairdresser
11. Chinese Herbal Specialist
12. Clothing Alterations
13. Liquor Supplies
14. Café
15. Chinese Takeaway

In fact this is almost the minimum to achieve critical mass for a shopping centre. Residents of LIndfied, East Lindfield, Killara and East Killara regularly used the centre. Now the options are either Lindfield Coles on the west side (with its limited choice) or going to Chatswood or Gordon. All that extra driving (and time wasted) - for everyone!


However I am amazed that the retail area in the new development is being allowed to be reduced in each revised design. Even the currently approved design cannot accommodate IGA and the other 15 outlets listed above.


I object to any further reduction in retail areas. If they want more units, let them build higher. (Chatswood allows much higher building and clearly it is not a problem there, so why not here, next to the railway and the Pacific Highway? It is no beauty spot after all.

Please do not allow this latest application to succeed. A modified application, with no further retail space reduction, should be submitted. I would happily support that.

I strongly object to the reduction in retail space being proposed in the current DA. To enable the retail hub on the eastern side of the railway line at Lindfield to flourish, there needs to be a critical mass of retail space to make the whole area viable and attractive to businesses and customers alike. Too small and it will wither and die.

This site is in an ideal area for retail space, being close to Lindfield station and servicing not only local residents but also train commuters who come from further afield.

I would favour a return to the original size of retail space proposed for the development.

There also appears to be inadequate residential parking provided for the proposed increase in the number of units.

The retail space in this development is very important for the residents of Lindfield and nearby suburbs. Reducing the retail space is not what is needed, more retail space is required. It is a important amenity so close to a railway station.
I object to these changes to the retail space area. The developer must not be allowed to reduce the size of the retail area as was approved in an earlier DA ( when the size of the development was smaller in size ( and more retail area was on the plans!).