Mixed use development at 8-16 Watt Street, Gosford (Gateway site)

I would like to write in support of this proposal, which is a badly needed initiative in support of Central Coast economic development and socio-economic initiatives.

Central Coast LGA has the highest homelessness count in NSW. And one of the lowest rates of building approvals in Australia (Sources: ABS. 8731.0 - Building Approvals, Australia, Jul 2020; AIHW 2019. Specialist Homelessness Services Collection data cubes 2011–12 to 2018–19. Canberra: AIHW)

In addition, the Central Coast has been badly hit by the recession caused by COVID-19, with 49% of businesses on the Coast relying on jobkeeper and over 24,000 recipients of jobseeker/youth allowance, and a current rate of 24 jobseekers per job vacancy (Sources: DESE Jobseeker data, DSS Jobseeker data, LMIP Job Vacancy data)

It's also worth bearing in mind that 24% of businesses on the Coast are in construction, which is one of the industries worst hit by the pandemic. We estimate there are currently an additional 1,000 Central Coast construction employees out of work due to COVID-19.

Another important factor is that the Central Coast currently has very low residential rental vacancy rates, with locals being pushed out of the rental housing market due to demand from Sydney. This lack of available supply is also driving up rents, reducing affordability (Sources: SQM Research, SGS Economic Rental Affordability Index)

Therefore, putting emotions aside (particularly from members of the community that typically resist change), it is clear that the Central Coast desperately needs these kinds of innovative, forward-looking initiatives, in support of economic growth and socio-economic sustainability.

The DA represent massive over-development and does not comply with local government planning restrictions. Far exceeding the height limit and prescribed Floor Space Ratio. Proposed development will easily lead to increased traffic congestion and parking problems on local streets , as well as related issues in noise and living environment due to the very high density.

‘This is a pre-approval major project referral which must be sent to the Landuse Enquiries team at [email protected] for a coordinated response with DPIE Water rather than direct to NRAR.’

Dear Louise,

Please find Aboriginal Cultural Heritage comments from Heritage NSW attached.
Should you have any questions regarding our advice please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards
Rebecca Yit

BCD's comments are attached. Thanks for the extension, but we unexpectedly completed our comments today.

Please find attached the response from Central Coast Local Health District to the Gateway Development, Gosford.

Hi Louise
Please find attached TfNSW response letter.
Regards,
Dipen Nathwani

TfNSW Response

Submission of Objection regarding Mixed Use Development at Watt Street, Gosford (Gosford Gateway Centre, SSD-10414)

To the NSW Department of Planning, Industry, and Environment,

We are the owners of 139 Faunce Street, Gosford, NSW. We write this submission to oppose the proposed development by Jarre Pty Ltd at 8-16 Watt Street, 243-249 Mann Street, and 135 &137 Faunce Street, Gosford.
We are concerned about the significant adverse effects of this proposed development on our use and enjoyment of our property, as well as that of our tenants. This harm will be present in both the short-term demolition and construction, and in the long term once the development is completed. We want to stress that our property is so close to the proposed development that its concept plans in fact go over our property as part of the landscaping. As a result, we are extremely concerned about the adverse effects this development will have on our property. Our primary concerns are summarised as follows:

• Lot isolation causing devaluation of our property
We strongly agree with the Central Coast Council’s concern that this proposed development would cause lot isolation of our property. As our property lies on the corner of Faunce Street and Watt Street, the proposed development would completely surround our property, and will severely limit developments on our land. The loss in development potential will lead to a significant loss of market value in our property, and is unacceptable.

• Significant noise disturbance due to construction, leading to loss of tenant
The proposed development would cause serious noise disturbances to the occupants of our property in both the short-term (from the large-scale demolition and construction of neighbouring buildings) and the long-term (by increased foot traffic in the area directly adjacent to our property, and by the habitation of Towers 1A and 1B which have been allocated for student accommodation).
We refer to Tables 6.1 and 6.2 (pages 16-17) of the Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (Appendix Y) of the developer’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which acknowledges that nearby properties (R4, around 55m away) will be ‘noise affected’ due to construction. This assessment failed to consider noise disturbance to our property, which is directly adjacent to the construction site and will likely be highly affected by the noise on a continual basis throughout the day, every day until all phases of demolition, excavation, and construction are completed.
This noise disturbance is of particular concern because our current tenant is a not-for-profit community radio station. This tenant has occupied our property for over 10 years and, being a radio station, absolutely requires reasonable noise levels for their continued occupation of our property. This proposed development would not only ensure the loss of an excellent and stable tenant, but would also heavily devalue our property and rent value in the long term. This is in addition to the difficulty and cost of marketing involved in finding a new tenant willing to live next to a major and likely disruptive construction project. Furthemore, the loss of our current tenant would also incur significant costs associated with renovating our property from one that is highly specialised to accommodate a radio station, into a suitable dwelling for use as an investment property.

• Significant vibration disturbance due to construction, leading to loss of tenant
Due to the proximity of the proposed development, we also foresee significant disruption due to vibrations associated with demolition, excavation, and construction.
We refer to Tables 7.1 and 7.2 (page 19) of the Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (Appendix Y) of the developer’s EIS. We disagree with the findings in Table 7.2 that the vibration will be within acceptable amenity criterion, because again this is not representative of our unique situation being located directly adjacent the proposed development. We refer to Table 7.1 outlining the expected vibration levels from major equipment that is expected to be present at the development site, which shows that activities will be significantly disturbing (i.e. exceeding the amenity criterion) up to 20m away (Rock Hammer - 1500kg). Given the extreme proximity of our property to the development site (particularly Tower 1B), we expect that an unacceptable level of vibration will be present during the development. This issue will also contribute to our current tenant likely vacating the property, as outlined above.

• Complete overshadowing for large portion of the day
We refer to Figure 26 (page 87) of the EIS, which illustrates how the proposed development would cast large shadows over the neighbouring buildings. Our property, being directly adjacent to Towers 1A and 1B, would be significantly overshadowed year-round from approximately midday until sunset. We note that such considerable overshadowing is likely due to the proposed towers being many times taller than the Central Coast Council’s designated height limit of 36m. This would have serious consequences for our use and enjoyment of the property - a concern shared by the Central Coast Council, who also addressed this issue in their submission to NSW DPIE (Table 23 page 105, EIS).

• Privacy and safety concerns
Both the construction and eventual habitation of this proposed development would present significant privacy and safety concerns to the occupants of our property. Considering the height of the towers, it is incredibly likely that residents (primarily students and short-term stays) would be able to view any activities in our yard and potentially inside our property. Furthermore, safety would become an issue if any materials during construction or belongings of future residents were to fall onto our property.
We are especially concerned by this as our property is adjacent to one of the major pedestrian access points to the proposed development (illustrated by Figure 23, page 82 of EIS). With increased foot traffic from potentially thousands of new residents occupying the neighbouring towers, the safety and security of our tenants would be irrevocably jeopardised. Again, this would likely significantly diminish our property’s value in the rental market.

• Lost suitability as a retirement property
Most important to us is that we had originally planned to spend our retirement in this property, and if this development goes ahead we will likely lose this opportunity due to concerns for our safety and privacy as outlined above. Furthermore, it would be extremely difficult for us to find a comparable retirement property located in the heart of Gosford CBD with similar proximity to important venues such as the Gosford train station and Imperial Centre shopping mall. The proposed development would impose a considerable cost on us to find a suitable replacement, which would likely be significantly greater than our initial investment in 139 Faunce Street.

• Altered view
We refer to Table 17 (page 85) of the EIS, which assesses the “Magnitude of Visibility”, “Visual Sensitivity”, and “Visual Impact” as “High” in all categories. The View Impact Analysis also states that the people in Faunce Street, where our property is located, will be “very aware of the altered view”. We have concerns that this altered view will both adversely impact our future enjoyment of the property and decrease its value.

Therefore, for reasons including those outlined above, we oppose the proposed development.

Signed,
Kevin Xiao and Amie Chen

See attached submission

See attached PDF

Please refer to the attached objection for project SSD-10414.

Council response

The Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE)- Water and the Natural Resources Access Regulator (NRAR) have reviewed the Mixed use development at 8-16 Watt Street Gosford EIS and have provided comments in the attached.