Mod 1 - Amend subdivision plan & conditions

I object to the request to "delete the requirement to provide a 3m wide corridor for a future path way link to halls road" as i purchased and built a house at 47 Halls road knowing that my children would have a walking route to council property that located within the lakes estate.

If this walk way is not approved my children would be required to talk 4kms to get access to this common land.

They also study at bishop Druitt school and ride their cycles via the proposed route. If this is not completed again, they would have to ride along the dangerous highway and adds an extra 4kms.

I wish to object to the proposed modification to delete the 3 meter wide corridor for future pathway link to Halls Road. This corridor provides a vital link between The Lakes and Halls Rd residents. My children often meet their friends at the park in The Lakes of an afternoon. Several of their friends who live in The Lakes also catch the school bus to Halls Road, of an afternoon, and then walk the rest of the way home. Without this walkway we would have to get to The Lakes via the Pacific Highway, approximately an extra 4 kilometres. A lot of my neighbours choose to walk over to The Lakes due to the flat walking tracks. As a family we often ride our bikes through this corridor to access flat roads.
I strongly urge you to reconsider the amendment to delete the pathway for our families recreational future.

I wish to object to the proposed modification of the removal of: "A 3 metre wide corridor is to be provided to the north of Lot 120 to allow for a future pathway to link with Halls Road".

The reasons for this objections are as follows:

1. This corridor between Halls Road and Lakes Estate was included on the original site plan and was a deciding factor for us to purchase our Halls Road property.

2. I work at Bishop Druitt College and often walk to and from work from my Halls Road address. Removing the ability to access the Lakes Estate from Halls Rd by foot would force me (and other staff and students of the school in the same street) to travel to the school by car. It is a 15 minute walk from Halls Road via the Lakes Estate. Depending on highway traffic, this trip can take up to a 20 minutes by car.

3. My partner and I access the Lakes Estate by foot from Halls Road, as we often exercise by walking in the area of Lakes Estate. We enjoy this activity due to the serene environment of the Lakes Estate and the safety of walking in a low-traffic area. Should the future walkway be removed, this would force us to walk on busier and more dangerous roads.

Please reconsider the removal of this 3m corridor for a future pathway link to Halls Road.

We strongly object to the proposed modification to remove the requirement to provide a 3 metre wide corridor for a future pathway link to Halls Road.

Our reasons are as follows:

* This is the only walkway / pedestrian access between the Lakes and Halls Road without having to cross the Pacific Highway and basically go all the way around.
* Should the walkway be removed it will mean an approx. 4km drive either way from Halls Road, across the Pacific Highway and into North Boambee Road.
* The walkway allows residents of Lakes access to the Halls Road area and vice versa. This in turn allows for more direct and shorter walking distance for Lakes residents to the CBD.
* Many school children from Lakes walk through the access to catch school buses in the Halls Road area and of course are dropped in the afternoons at the same pick up point and use the access to get back across to the Lakes.
* This also applies where children residing in the Halls Road area attend Bishop Druitt College, located on North Boambee Road, and can currently gain safe and more direct access on foot (or bike) via the Lakes.
* The removal of the pathway would also prevent children from the Halls Road area safe and easy access to the playground located in the Lakes.
* As dog owners and regular walkers we frequently use the access to avoid having to cross the highway, but also to just enjoy the pathways and bushland currently available.
* If not for emergency purposes, there should at the very least be a pedestrian access between the two areas for the safety of residents in both areas. For example, in past storm episodes, the access to North Boambee Road has flooded and there is no other way in or out of the Lakes. The Lakes is home to an extremely large Aged Care facility and should an emergency arise with a resident during such weather events, there would be no other access available should the pathway be removed.

We strongly urge you to reconsider the amendment to remove the pathway access between Halls Road and The Lakes. We believe that the provision of a 3 metre wide corridor for pathway link between the two estates is essential in maintaining the safety and enjoyment that residents from both Halls Road and The Lakes currently relish in having a pedestrian access.

We declare that we have not made any political donations in the last few years.

Yours sincerely


Karen & Terry Jerrett

I have two specific objections.
1) Clause 3.2.4 B1 Sudivision Design Modifications
(b) A 3mt wide corridor to be provided for a future pathway link to Halls Rd.
Although a designation has never previously been specified the proposed alternative footpath from Amadeus Place to Lophostemon Drive would be much longer and over an existing swamp area which is still not under ownership of the proponent. This would incur a much greater expense and hence is highly likely to be deleted altogether in future amendments to this current proposal.

2)The inclusion of lot 74 in stage 2B of the development for "possible 4 townhouses" is not compatible to this development and the Coffs Harbour City Council has the experience of the practical insuitability of this type of integration that has been imposed in other developmental areas under their control. The creation of such an improvement on lot 74 would also negate the benefits of the open space area and existing reserve abutting existing dwellings and lot 131. This area although not designated as a Primary Koala Habitat does in fact currently enjoy the presence of Koalas. (Phographs can be provided as proof to support this claim) This also creates a reserve almost totally surrounded by residential dwellings which would very likely become impractical from a number of viewpoints.

My wife and I are the registered owners of Lot 106 being 31 Torrens Way North Boambee Valley. We live there with our 2 young children. We purchased the block and ultimately built our dream home in The Lakes Estate as we believed it to be an area which had various covenants which limited the way in which residences in the estate were constructed.
We have reviewed the proposed modifications to MP05_0129 MOD1 and make the following objections.
1. It was always our understanding and represented to us via the listing agent and marketing material that the estate would have one entry and exit road namely Lakes Drive.
The proposed modifications have access to the estate via Highlands Estate (which is not part of the Lakes Estate) and potentially Halls Road. The effect of this will undoubtedly be excess traffic which will place residence including young children, the elderly and visitors to the park and great cycle paths at risk. Presently in peak times traffic flow is congested in Lakes Drive particularly in front of the aged care facility where the employees and visitors park on both sides of the road which makes the road in essence a single carriage way for both directions. In the modifications, council should consider placing requirements/conditions on the developer for parking for the employees and visitors of the aged care facility as it is only a matter of time until the accident occurs.
2. We note that the proposed modifications provide for Lot 74 to contain townhouse developments. This is in total contrast to the current developments within the estate and the open nature of it. The construction of town houses, which are adjacent to koala habitat, and residential homes will have a significant impact on not only the standard of the overall estate and will reduce the value of the current dwellings in the estate.
3. During our consideration of purchasing Lot 106 we considered future developments within the area and note the modification seeking to have 3 land parcels at the end of Barrington Close as opposed to 2. This will not only increase traffic flow but cause parking problems.
4. We note that the modifications omit any consideration to the construction of access ways (non vehicular) including footpaths from the intersection of North Boambee Road and Lakes Drive to Bishop Druitt College where a number of children who reside in the Lakes Estate attend.

I am concerned about the proposed possible town house site known as Lot 74 on the modified plans PM05_0129MOD1 believing that this is not compatible for the overall estate and it's high standards. I have seen townhouses in other quality subdivisions in other towns and always found that it reduces the standard and the value of the asset.
The proposed Lot 131, 132 and 133 off Barrington Close. When I purchased my property on the corner of Barrington Close and Torrens Way, I was advised that there were only 2 developments lots in Barrington Close, now there are 3.
Lot 131 should be left as part of the reserve which you indicate on your plan as green space. If lot 103 goes ahead, there is no access to this green space from Barrington Close.
Lot 133 does not indicate if the access is from The Lakes Drive or Barrington Close.
I am a concerned resident and I know there are many more concerned that the originally plans of the estate are being considered for major changes. I have purchased in this quality estate for it's standard, peace of quiet and overall visual effect all of which are now being eroded.

See attachment

See attached