Mod 5 - Further Lot & Road Layout Changes

The proposal will over-develop the site. The Magenta Shores development is one of the premier developments on the central coast. If allowed this development will result in an ugly overcrowding of an otherwise tastefully developed site. The straightened roads will detract from the overall amenity of the area. The proposed parking is seriously insufficient. Parking is already a problem in the area. As many properties are used as holiday lettings more vehicles come on to the site than for houses that are owner occupied or permanently let.

The Environmental Assessment to amend the original master plan states objectives as

1. Increase the lot yield in this particular release area (whilst retaining the overall lot yield for the site). *
2. Slightly amend the road layout to better reflect current best practice urban design (a straight, through road). *
3. Provide for minor lot alignment changes to better orientate the lots, reducing the risk of a golf ball breaking windows or injuring residents.

My objections to this are


1) Increase in lot numbers. The DA has many references to keeping in context with existing development and not changing overall lot numbers. However a 50% increase in lot numbers and reduction of lot size in this area by as much as 25% with loss of parks will significantly detract from the existing development. Also this change could then be used in the future to maintain the newer small lot sizes rather than have to actually increase lot sizes from the original master plan to maintain as claimed, no increase in overall lot numbers for the total site. I note that this DA already cites R07B, the currently being constructed 51 lot subdivision (which compares to the masterplan's 36 lots) as precedent for smaller lots and increased density for this proposal, R07A or R08 in the original masterplan. It is simply not true as stated in the table on page 19, that this development will be similar in "density bulk and scale" to the existing villas and dwellings - the significant increase in lot numbers from the master plan, to which the existing villas and dwellings were built, will make the proposed development look significantly more compacted and thus be a change in all three of density, bulk and scale. Indeed this DA covers the area of original masterplan designations R08, 09 and 11 which thus actually includes the developer's current being constructed 51 lot subdivision which they have designated as R07B.

2) Changing road alignment. This change actually detracts from the existing development which has mainly gently curved suburban streets tending to calm traffic and a number of well used parks near existing residents. The width of proposed and existing roads make curved roads conducive to slower speeds and a safer environment. Straightening the roads would tend to increase average speeds in the neighbourhood.

3) Elimination of pocket parks. It is simply not necessary to eliminate parks to prevent public access to the golf course - there would be many other ways to achieve this. Contrary to the claim in the DA, the original master plan road alignment on the south eastern side of the 18th fairway was to face the dwellings toward the green, so away from miss hit golf shots. Straightening this road besides encouraging greater speed on the road would actually face dwellings more toward golfers hitting up the 18th fairway.



In addition:


1) It is simply not credible or appropriate to have their objectives for "Setbacks, Open Space Areas, Carparking Access and Stormwater discharge" to be addressed by future development only - it needs to be addressed by this current proposed development as well. For example, specifically for car parking, all existing detached dwellings whether 3 or 4 bedrooms, have 2 enclosed garage carparks but the proposed development does not commit to maintaining this, merely stating that there would be a minimum of 1 with 2 garages provided for 4 bedroom dwellings.


2) Seems incorrect that Wyong LEP 1991 would insist that only 25% of all dwellings could be detached. In any case, the current number of detached dwellings built to villas is close to 50% and the 51 lot subdivision now being constructed by the developer is over 40% detached dwellings. The developers current DA states:

"The Masterplan DA was lodged under Wyong LEP 1991, which required a maximum of 25% of all dwellings on site to be detached."

In reading the Wyong LEP the following says that the council can approve up to 75% of accommodation to be permanent which seems to be the exact opposite to only 25% being detached.

"67 (5) The Council may consent to the use for permanent residence of up to seventy-five per cent of the accommodation provided by a managed resort facility. In determining the proportion concerned, the Council must have regard to the nature of the facility and its relationship to surrounding land uses, and must be satisfied that the granting of the consent will not result in the dominant use of the land on which the facility is located being for a purpose other than that of a managed resort facility."

So in this regard, Table 1 on page 10 seems incorrect because the number of detached dwellings currently is around 130 and villas or attached dwellings approx. 140. The Developer's proposal states there are 105 detached dwellings which ignores the 30 completed construction over the last 18 to 24 months and that 80 of the 105 claimed, are for tourist accommodation. In fact the great majority of detached dwellings are owner occupied or long term rentals so how does the developer justify that 204 or 75% of the current total dwellings at Magenta are "tourist" when most of the detached dwellings and indeed some villas are permanent residences?

I object to the application to modify the existing Development Application DA 32-01-2003 MOD 5

My objections are based on my experience living within the estate. I believe the modification will have a detrimental impact for existing and future residents. The application to modify the DA will provide the developer a precident for future development applications. My objections are as below.

1) Traffic Flow

Due to my location within the site I have experienced the impact of increased traffic flow from the current development end of Pebble Beach Ave. Approximately 20 newly built homes has increased traffic flow, those homes have a minimum of 2 vehicles per residence.
The proposed Increase in lots from 38 to 58 to location stage 2 White Haven Ave Magenta will have the potential of 40 extra vehicles with a total of 116 vehicles impacting the traffic flow in and out of the estate.

2) Safety

The application to modify the roads removing pocket parks along with the increase in traffic flow will have an impact on safety. Removal of the pocket parks will impact the safety of children that utilize the parks as play area's. Removal of pocket parks will force children to play on streets. Tourists safety will be compromised as most families stay within the estate also have children.

Pocket parks as current design DA 32-01-2003 within the road structure will slow traffic.
Proposed installation of speed humps within the modified application for will not slow traffic, the design of speed humps on Pebble Beach Ave do not slow traffic down.

3) National Park Wildlife

I object to the request to remove the described pedestrian linkages to the golf course. Purpose for the described pedestrian linkages within the modified application are actually wildlife corridors, these corridors allow a verity of wild life to access areas of the national parks surrounding the estate. the removal of the corridors would severally impact the wildlife migration to areas of habitat.

DA 32-01-2003 MOD 5 - Modification to North Entrance, "Magenta Shores"
I would like to object to the above application to modify the existing development on the following grounds.
1. Lack of P.G.&R.S.
2. no provisions off street parking
3. There is no continuation of the wild life corridor from Central coast Hwy to the Crown land boarding the Tasman sea.
4. Over development of the subject area being inconsistent with the original master plan.
5. Whitehaven Ave is already burdened with cars parked either side of the road, thus allowing only one vehicle proceeding at any one time.
6. There is no basis for a change in the road lay out. it would appear, there are many existing dwellings closer to the golf course.
It conclusion weekends and holiday periods see a dramatic increases in visitors, ( as would be expected, Magenta Shores being and upmarket tourist attraction). These people are already putting stress on the the facilities already available. Any further development should include extra recreational facilities and off street & visitors parking.
Yours faithfully
V. Szarkun

1. the proposed increase in density from 38-58 lots (53% over the approved masterplan) is excessive and not in keeping with existing development density
2. the increased density sets another precedent and is a precursor to increased densities for the remainder of the site
3. removal of pedestrian link and pocket park it contrary to the existing well vegetated setting at Magenta
4. the subdivision application does not provide any detail on type of buildings which under the 'default' 10m height limit could be 3 storey walk ups or other totally inappropriate development
5.. existing Magenta streets were not designed for heavy construction traffic which will severely impact on existing residents and hotel guests. Construction traffic should be required to use the fire trail on the eastern boundary.

As a resident of Magenta Shores, I object to the developer increasing the density as the original master plan was extremely well thought out. The additional dwellings are going to have a significant impact on the Estates infrastructure and amenities, also removing landscape corridors will significantly detract from Magenta's beautiful street appeal.

Whilst I am pro development and not against a developer making profit, there is a right way and a wrong way to do things and I believe the original aesthetics should be maintained and continued throughout the estate.

I would be happy to discuss this matter further if required.

PRELIMINARY SUBMISSION

The Magenta Shores Community Association is charged with the responsibility of the 'control and preservation of the essence of the theme of the Community Scheme' under the Community Management Scheme (CMS) under the Community Land Management Act 1989 and the Community Land Development Act 1989.

The proposed application seeks to :

. significantly vary the density of development on the Estate
. reduce the amount of green space by eliminating pedestrian links and pocket parks; and
. amend the road layout to that which was approved by the Department in 2004

The Magenta Shores Community Association have engaged the services of a town planner to review all the documentation and assist in the preparation of a submission. As advised in correspondence with Ingrid Berzins, the application will be discussed with the community at a meeting on 8 December 2017 after which a final submission will be lodged the following week.

At this stage the main concerns are as follows:

1. The proposed density increase from 38 to 58 lots (53%) without any increase in service provisions on the Estate;

2. The removal of pedestrian links and pocket parks which were designed to provide valuable green space and relief from the built form;

3. The lack of any indicative housing designs which would enable us to more accurately assess the impact and compatibility of the built form on existing development, the golf course and local environs. Indicative designs were provided in the previous application (RO7B);

4. The implications that this increased density will have for the development of the remainder of the site. Despite the claim in the accompanying 'Environmental Assessment' documentation that there will be no increase in the number of lots on the site, the developer has always maintained that the intention is to significantly increase the density on the remainder of the site;

5. Major concerns that construction vehicles will be required to use the existing residential streets for access due to the proposed closure of the current construction road access on the eastern boundary of the site. This will destroy the amenity of the existing neighbourhoods and negatively impact on hotel operations during the construction period.

6. Much of the information in the Environmental Assessment prepared by Design Partnership that accompanies the application is inaccurate, misleading or incorrect.

While I am supportive of further developments in Magenta, I am concerned with the following issues:
1) the increase in lots will add to the parking problems currently experienced in Magenta.
2) the current policy: 1 parking space for 3 bedrooms etc. is not adequate. This has to be reviewed and accordingly improved for future developments.
3) increasing lot numbers in masterplan must naturally result to increase in facilities, parking, roads, open spaces in the proximate area where the increase in lots is situated

I am lodging this submission as a resident and owner at Magenta Shores.

I raise an objection to the proposed development to exclude pocket parks from the modified development application. The application states that "pocket parks are not considered to be appropriate as they do not function as usable open space".

This statement is contrary to the feedback received by the developer during community consultation workshops conducted in June 2017.

The results of the workshops and community surveys are included in the attached consultant's report.

At page 33 under "Recreation & Wellbeing" pocket parks were rated equally first for attractiveness and priority among attractions and community lifestyle needs. The report quotes "they [pocket parks] break up the buildings and create breathing space".

At page 19 of the report, two tables measure levels of usage (Table 3.1.3.4) and satisfaction (Table 3.1.3.5) for various facilities. Satisfaction level of pocket parks received the highest rating of all, with 98% of respondents either positive satisfied or neutral.

47% of residents/investors/holiday home owners use the pocket parks. During the workshops, participants noted a major benefit of pocket parks was the visual green space. That was highly valued and is reflected in the high satisfaction levels.

The development application has dismissed pocket parks because 53% of people do not physically use them. But that's completely ignoring their enormous aesthetic value.

Refer to attachment 1

See PDF

The attached submission is made on behalf of 44 property owners at Magenta Shores.

The attached list of owners shows twenty-five (25) who are happy to be identified and, on page 2, nineteen (19) owners who do not wish to be identified.

All 44 owners have declared that they have not made any political donations in the past two years.

attachment provided below