New South Wales
Objection to SSD 10321 89 John Whiteway Drive Gosford 20 May 2020
As a non- resident Owner of an apartment in SP53908 Rumbalara Apartments I write this brief Objection to SSD10321 in haste, due partly to the lack of information provided to Owners of neighbouring apartment buildings. Flyers advertising the Community Consultation meeting on 30 October 2019 were I understand dropped into letterboxes of the neighbouring apartment complexes, two thirds to three quarters of which are occupied by tenants. No attempt was made to contact the various Strata Managers the names of which could easily have been obtained from their Notice Boards. In the case of Rumbalara Apartments the Noticeboard is adjacent to the letter boxes. The Baker Ryan Stewart office handling this notification and Consultation Meeting at 33 Mann St is only some 500M away. Tenants can come and go at any time, and therefore would have very little regard for a flyer in their letter box and regarding this as junk mail. It is no wonder therefore that a flyer advising a consultation meeting to be held in one week’s time was very poorly attended. All neighbouring apartment owners we believe should have been advised as they have a very considerable financial interest – probably more than the advertised value of the proposed State Significant development.
I attended the Community Meeting held on 30 October specifically travelling back from an engagement in Sydney, completed a submission, and asked to be kept notified of the progress. No further update was provided. The Notice of the Exhibition by NSW Planning was sent to my Investment Unit at 117 John Whiteway Drive and thankfully forwarded at a later date by my tenant.
As there have already been a number of incarnations of this development proposed via CC Council DAs (I have already written 3 submissions to Council) it is respectfully requested that submissions to Council DAs also be taken into consideration when assessing this development due to poor advertising of the SSD as far as neighbouring properties have been concerned. It should also be pointed out that the Applicant has provided more than 300 megabytes of information to the NSW Planning website - this could be totally overwhelming for the average lay person.
It is pleasing however that the development does not now extrude into the no-build area of the JWD Precinct. The following issues however remain of great concern:
• Excessive Height - over Council's DCP and LEP
• Excessive FSR – particularly if the no-build area is removed from the calculation
• Excessive excavation to a depth of 18M – removal of 200,000 tonnes of rock and soil which will result in many months of extreme disturbance for the neighbours and community roads. How many tenants will give notice as soon as they are able?
• Risk of rockfall / accidental damage to garages and/or people despite the limited proposed catchment fence (the 117 JWD clothes line is immediately below the quarry cliff face ). We understand a question posed at the Consultation meeting concerning Insurance against such a happening received the answer that this would be a matter for the neighbours’ insurance policy and not for the Insurers of the proposed Development.
• Proposed public walkway and viewing platforms - from the survey it can be seen that there is no setback between the end of the Rumbalara Apartment building and the NW narrow tongue of lane that fronts onto the lower part of JWD along which the walkway is proposed. This walkway was included in the DAs to Council, however after objections, was subsequently removed from the DA by Council, but not recorded in the list of changes by ADG. This walkway is now justified as an item for the Clause 4.6 Variation Request indicating at 3.2 Clause 4.6(3)(b) on Environmental planning grounds as an 'asset' to the development as ‘the variation will enable the provision of a new through-site connection and public viewing platform, which will improve the relationship between Gosford city centre and Rumbalara Reserve’. This is very questionable as all the trees are to be removed and those residing at Rumbalara Apartments might see the walkway as a security risk – vagrants / potential for rock throwing, and as a privacy issue. Moreover this would appear only to be of benefit to the occupants of the SSD and not to the general public. (Should however this walkway eventuate, we would request that provision for a stormwater drain be added on the edge of the 79/117 JWD boundary. Currently a large amount of water descends down the shotcrete bank on our 117 JWD side of the boundary. Over the years several trees from 89 JWD have fallen onto the roof of 117 JWD due to their extreme proximity to this boundary edge, possibly due to soil erosion).