Residential Development at 89 John Whiteway Drive, Gosford

1. The Landscape plan is great, the walk-through paths and look-out will be welcome - a much nicer way into Gosford CBD,

2. Getting rid of the old Quarry will be a great pleasure, it is full of weeds, vermin and dust

3. We will get our street lights completed in John Whiteway Drive

4. Pavements and kerb and guttering will be properly completed in John Whiteway Drive

5. The Construction Management Plan helps us by using only part of JWD in and out,

6. The highest part is in Block D and far set-back from JWD which is great for us,

7. Their APZ requirements will tidy up and clean part of our site which is a great help

8. The buildings are attractive and the bulk and scale from John Whiteway Drive has very sympathetic gaps and light channels

Crown Lands has no comments for this proposal.

Objection to the project is the number of units, and in particular the plan for a 12 storey block of units, which will alter the scale of the development and this precinct.
Concern about the number of residents and their visitors, traffic and parking issues in a road which already has street parking and safety issues.
Concern about fire safety given the single road access and egress.
Concern about this development impinging on privacy and increasing noise issues for the units (Panorama Towers) in which we live.

I am very concerned that my two bedrooms to the rear at 117 John Whiteway Drive Gosford will be deprived of the morning winter sunlight until 11am on 21st June according to the shadow diagram. I request that the height of the buildings are reduced to afford me access to morning winter sunshine rather than be thrown into a shadow for the majority of the morning.

BCD's comments are attached.

My reasons for objecting to the project are set out in the attachment hereto

Response attached

TfNSW Response

We object to this project in its current form and have attached our documentation accordingly.
Sincerely.

Refer attached

Object due to danger to adjoining cliffs, etc.

I have lived in Rumbalara Units, (situated on the lower part of John Whiteway Drive, number 117) since January 2013.
This area although close to Gosford CBD is a very quiet and amenable place to live.
It is also an area that is adjacent to the proposed developments which apparently include a large number of units and significant variations to regulated building heights.
I understand that the current proposal includes public access to the site via a walkway which will include lookouts over Brisbane Water and Gosford CBD and will run along the rim of the old Gosford Quarry site which forms the boundary of 117 John Whiteway Drive. In addition to the possibility of objects being thrown, it would be possible to look directly into the units at 117 John Whiteway Drive from this walkway.
I believe this would have a negative impact on my privacy, security and safety, and the privacy, security and safety of the residents of 117 John Whiteway Drive.

I cannot believe that any organisation with the word “Environment “ in its title could countenance such a submission. The development adjoins a nature reserve containing a wide variety of native fauna and flora, as well as well-used walking tracks which are used by tourists as well as education experts. Placing a community of at least 500 people on the edge of such a reserve shows contempt for the environment, the ecology and the future of the city. The development itself will protrude like a chancre from the natural environment of the ridge as seen from the town centre. What natural beauty that is allowed to exist in Gosford is contained in the green surroundings. This development will be visible for miles around and will be a monument to the crass greed of whoever accepts responsibility for approving it. Height limits were instituted by the local Council reflecting the wishes of the community, and to ride roughshod over these limits shows a flagrant contempt for that community. I see no significance to the State that justifies ignoring the local people. There is plenty of undeveloped land in Gosford that could accommodate such a large development without impinging on either the natural beauty of the area or the needs of the environment. I request that the wishes and interests of the community be placed ahead of the commercial greed of the developers and this project be declined.

See attached submission

Please see my full submission attached.
The development needs to be modified to ensure it considers:
- the importance of the green hills of Gosford as one of the greatest assets of the LGA visually and environmentally;
- the height and bulk of this development has an unacceptable impact on the landscape values of the area;
- better design thinking resulting in better architecture and urban design;
- the aim for a livable and sustainable city
- the Aboriginal and historic heritage values of the site
- this site is not in the CBD and should not be allowed to use the impact of towers in the CBD as an excuse to extend the impact of high rise to the outer ring of the City Centre where there are clear visual and environmental constraints.

I have previously objected to this development and do so again on the following grounds:
The area is already densely populated with heavy traffic and limited parking for existing complexes due to the antiquated regulations relating to parking to living area ratios.
The Peak Hours times suggested in the Traffic Report are way out as I have previously mentioned with residents working outside the Gosford area having to depart their homes as early as 5am and not returning until after 7pm.
Goodness knows when the photos showing one or two cars parked opposite the development site and the two high rises in John Whiteway Drive were taken as they certainly don't reflect the parking problems being experienced by residents, guests, delivery people and contractors on a daily basis. The situation is so dire that I have approached Council requesting implementation of parking restrictions in an effort to free up spaces for residents who don't have off-street parking.
Central Coast cycleways have been spoken about for awhile and the statement in the report is correct - it is difficult to access these directly from the development sie, you have to drive to the nearest one. Brilliant!
Public transport is close by especially bus stops. Well the one at Georgiana Terrace and Henry Parry Drive will take you to East Gosford but if you want to go to Gosford you will need to walk from there towards East Gosford then cross the road to pick up the Gosford bound bus as there is no access from John Whiteway Drive to Henry Parry Drive except via Georgiana Terrace....but then again I am repeating myself!
So there will be no Ecological impact - tell the possums, rock wallabies and ducks that use the area as a corridor!
Your reports are misleading and have obviously been written by an outsider.
Maybe if someone was to actually listen tp some of the residents who actually live in the area - some up to 20 years and have seen the mess that has been made from overdevelopment - they would consider recognizing the Heritage factor of the site, consider the wildlife in the area and be honest with prospective purchasers that his is not the place for them to live as it is not convenient, not accessible and they will be adding to an already over populated area which should be left alone .
Please consider this and consider expanding the residential corridor further away that the City of Gosford

Object to project totally- in favour of current development approval for site

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).

Submission and detailed objection attached.

Submission attached.