Residential Development at 89 John Whiteway Drive, Gosford

Objection attached.

Ausgrid has no further comments on the submission.

Please find attached Council's comments.

Comments attached.

Attached.

1. Concern continues in regard to the height and number of storeys for Blocks D and C. Block D appears to loom over the site and overlooks our neighbouring building (Panorama Towers). The angular design and bulk of all the blocks may be the current 'fashion' but is not sympathetic to the natural surroundings.

2. Parking: Because the building is at the top of a very steep hill, with no public transport, most residents will need their own transport, with most units needing at least two car parking spaces. Currently there are many cars from existing surrounding units in John Whiteway Drive needing to park on the street. The unlit, curving street does not provide safe on-road parking for vehicles which could not be parked off road for residents and their visitors.

All Gosford projects approved in the past 5 years should be null and void due to systemic corruption and incompetance.My view will be blocked by said towers whether 5 or 12 storey.Disgusting corrupt governance.Lack of infrastruture been applied by both state and local goverments for the increase in traffic is a disgusting shortcoming and will create choas in the near future due to lack of insight,foresight and discernment!!!!!

NSW Planning Industry and Environment
Minister for Planning and Public Spaces or IPC
ref: SSD 10321
89 John Whiteway Drive Gosford NSW
Lot 100 DP 1075037
Lot 1 DP 45551

Saturday 24th April, 2021

Letter with Objection to the proposed design and development at 89 – 91 John Whiteway Drive Gosford, SSD 10321, plus Comments, concerns and suggestions raised.

PLEASE FIND ATTACHED A COMPLETE LETTER IN OBJECTION SUBMITTED WITH CONCERNS, COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS RAISED. SUBMITTED SATURDAY 24TH APRIL 2021.

We object to the project and attach the following documentation in support of our objection.
Steyn_Objection_26-04-2021.pdf

Please refer to my submission SSD-10321 doc.

We strongly object to the location of the main lower basement car park access to 87-89 John Whiteway Drive, Gosford.
The neighbouring apartment block, 84 John Whiteway Drive, located directly opposite the south west boundary corner, not shown on the plan will directly be affected.
- High traffic from lower basement (195 car spaces and overflow from upper basement 110 car spaces) with its access directly opposite single vehicle access to 80 John Whiteway Dr. (188 units)
- Increased hazard from poor visibility when accessing John Whiteway Dr from lower basement due to street gradient and 2 street bends, one either side of the proposed ramp
- Lack of judgement when it comes to location of basement parking access, a flatter street access should be favoured as a main access in an area offering a better visibility, reducing accumulated hazards in one location, perhaps entering from the north east or north west end.
- Lights of exiting and turning vehicles using the 1:16 steep ramp from the lower basement will shine and sweep directly on the opposite units at 84 John Whiteway Drive.

The proposed driveway under Building A will spill large numbers of cars onto a small road, into a curved section and without regard for the apartments nearly opposite at 84 John Whiteway Drive. At 195 car spaces and with overflow from the upper basement of 110 car spaces, the noise, the additional traffic and the lights from the cars playing across the units opposite will take away much of the enjoyment in living there. The steep hill will push residents to use their cars for pretty much every excursion outside. The car parks should be spread out so each building has its own entrance and its own carpark, not 2 entrances feeding numbers consistent with a shopping center.

Attached

Attachments

Although the applicant has slightly reduced the size of the proposed development, CEN is opposed to the approval of the proposed development because it considers that the Clause 4.6 request for a variation in development standards has still not been justified.