Mod 3 - Modification to Project Approval

I have a major concern on the storm water direction from this subdivision location. The storm water drainage from this subdivision is directed to Leo drive and then to a small creek in Aries place and all the low lying properties below this subdivision. We have had two large storms since the drainage has been installed in February 2017 and both times it has flooded our street to knee deep height. I am aware that my neighbour has been in contact with council regarding this issue.
I am submitting this application to voice my concerns on the increase of land plots. The Storm Water Drainage from this subdivision needs to be address and re - surveyed by an engineer. As a further increase of land Plots been released this would just increase the water volume. We have had this flooding from only water collect off the land what would the water volume be like collected off homes with all that extra water going directly into the storm water drainage.
The storm water drainage need to be re directed to the Narrawallee inlet as this has the necessary pipes and drainage access. Aries place is only a residential street with a very small creek and does not have the large storm water pipe drainage size like the inlet.
It will be a major issue when a storm hits the area. The water will flood Aries place and the water will back up and flood Leo drive and all low lying home. This would lead to a class action by the Narrawallee residents against Shoalhaven council and NSW government & Planning & Environment Department due to the council incorrect installation of storm water drainage in the area.
This could easier be avoided if the correct storm water drainage had been correctly installed to the correct location. It seems what has been done was the cheapest and quickest solution not the correct solution.

I have a major concern on the storm water direction from this subdivision location.
I am submitting this application to voice my concerns on the increase of land plots. The Storm Water Drainage from this subdivision needs to be address and re - surveyed by an engineer. As a further increase of land Plots been released this would just increase the water volume. We have had this flooding from only water collect off the land what would the water volume be like collected off homes with all that extra water going directly into the storm water drainage.
The storm water drainage need to be re directed to the Narrawallee inlet as this has the necessary pipes and drainage access. Aries place is only a residential street with a very small creek and does not have the large storm water pipe drainage size like the inlet.
It will be a major issue when a storm hits the area. The water will flood Aries place and the water will back up and flood Leo drive and all low lying home. This would lead to a class action by the Narrawallee residents against Shoalhaven council and NSW government & Planning & Environment Department due to the council incorrect installation of storm water drainage in the area.
This could easier be avoided if the correct storm water drainage had been correctly installed to the correct location. It seems what has been done was the cheapest and quickest solution not the correct solution.

plus it will increase of Traffic & noise to the area, a further impact on bird and wildlife habitats and bushland.

We have already made submissions that the width of the streets leading to this subdivision (and a future one off Seascape) are insufficient to allow for the huge number of additional vehicles that this subdivision will generate. It has been said by council that most traffic will exit via Leo Drive and not affect Gemini, Seaspray, Seawind or Scorpio but already we can see, with tradies and earth moving vehicles, that this is not the case.
There is barely enough room for cars to pass, let alone the b-double type earth moving vehicles that are currently arriving. Let's hope there is no bush fire or Council will be responsible for injuries or deaths to those people who, because of congestion, could not exit. This might sound fanciful but with a proposed 190 lots that equals at least 380 more vehicles. In narrow roads.
We oppose changing the bush reserve to smaller, active reserves. We could understand this if the plan were to build high density high-rise, with little space for children to get outside and play, but with the current size of block they should be able to play to an extent in their own gardens. Also, previous development applications have included wildlife corridors, which in reality have been nothing more than a hope that landowners would retain some trees at the back of their land. So we do oppose this aspect, emphatically. As nearby residents we are seeing quite a lot of displaced birds and possums coming into our garden and consequent territorial fights.
Last, but not least, we wonder why Council holds extensive consultations with the community, signs off on a modified plan, and then the developer comes back a little while later to ask for the original plan (or almost) back. This seems (a) a total waste of the council's funds i.e. ratepayer money and (b) casts doubt on the integrity of the whole development and approval process.
We know Council has a difficult job, balancing the needs of development and residents, and thank you for reading this.
Assuming that a high percentage f the blocks being developed are going to be bought by retirees, we wonder when aged care facilities in the area will be increased to match.....

Main concerns: Carbon footprint increased by 13.09% from increase in number of blocks. Degradation and elimination of green belt bushland - environmentally sensitive wildlife habitat and waste water drainage areas. New environmental assessment must be undertaken to examine magnitude of impact created by proposed modifications.

I object to the proposed increase of lots from 168 to 190 on the grounds that the previous Minister approved this Sub-Division subject to reducing the original proposal from 220 to 168.

In regard to the proposal to replace bushland reserves with active reserves this will have an enormous effect on the flora and fauna already devastated by the current approval of 168 lots.

This submission is to be located in a sensitve bush setting. Given the size and scale of this residential development i believe that the impact in the Narrawallee inlet have not been adequately addressed. the flora and fauna survey states that 7 threatened species will be directly impacted by the size and scale of this development yet it concludes that there will be no impact in these species. This conclusion leads me to question whether the flora and fauna impact statement is a truely independent assessment. Furthermore, given the size of this 'modification' I do not believe that adequte time has been given to interested parties to review and comment on this plan.

We (Alister and Brigitte Nairn) object to the proposal to modify the Narrawallee residential subdivision. Application number MP 06_0267 MOD 2

The reasons we object are as follows:
The plan was previously approved by the NSW Government, the Shoalhaven Council and the Developer. Part of the reason we bought into the subdivision and will be living there from next year was that there was some land with native trees and understorey vegetation preserved. This is important to us because all the residential blocks sold so far have been cleared of all vegetation and trees and we were disappointed that no significant trees or habitat trees were preserved.

We oppose the significant reduction of public reserves from the original combined total of 27,246sqm to 14,845sqm (including a proposed croquet club) and the increase of residential blocks from 168 to 190. This reduction is a significant loss of open and public space within a subdivision that is the largest ever released in Narrawallee.
Narrawallee, so far, is characterised by residential areas interspersed with reserves, allowing for intermittent tree cover. This is aesthetically pleasing, assists with keeping temperatures lower, acts as windbreaks and allows movement and foraging for birds. With the approved subdivision plan the vegetated ridgeline was preserved to protect the visual amenity. With the current proposal for modification the ridgeline would be totally cleared.

We oppose the halving of the central reserve and the clearing of the native vegetation and habitat trees to make room for additional residential blocks and a croquet club. The Flora and Fauna report identified a number of habitat trees that are suitable for endangered birds for nesting and identified one particular tree with suitable nesting hollow for the powerful owl. A range of endangered fauna species were recorded in the reserves, including the powerful owl, masked owl, grey headed flying fox, glossy black cockatoos and more. The report identified a cumulative loss of Blackbutt Tall Forest and associated habitat loss within the locality. This will become even more problematic with the proposed development of land behind Seascape Close and the current clearing of trees on the western side of Bishop Drive.
We don't consider that a croquet club is appropriate for that location. The proposed croquet club consist of manicured lawn, 22 car parking spaces plus a club house. All of this requires the complete clearing of land. The demographics of a croquet club is very different to the demographics of the likely residents in the subdivision. In our opinion a croquet club would be better placed near the proposed large over 55 and aged care facility in Milton, where there is land that is already cleared.

We oppose the complete scrubbing of the northern reserve. The preservation of hollow bearing trees only, without surrounding vegetation impact on the habitat and foraging of the recorded endangered fauna by removing food sources, shelter, nesting sites and by increasing human presence and activity.
We note that the Shoalhaven Council advised that they do not wish to have a playground in the southern reserve as there is a playground less than 300m away. That playground (at Leo Drive) has minimal facilities, no shade over the play equipment and is mainly suitable for toddlers and pre-school children. It has a lot of underutilised cleared space and would benefit from an upgrade and/ or expansion to make it more attractive to older children and to increase general amenities.

Whilst we see some benefit to keeping the southern reserve as originally proposed and linking it to the existing reserve we recognise that this land has been degraded and residential blocks wouldn't result in significant vegetation and habitat loss. On that ground we do not oppose the developer installing playground equipment at an alternate location (such as the Leo Drive park) and converting the southern reserve into residential lots.

Our priority is that the size of the central and the northern reserve be preserved with mature trees retained and that the space is there for the enjoyment of the residents of the subdivision and for the people living and holidaying in Narrawallee and supports native fauna, especially birds by retaining native vegetation and trees. Prior to clearing for stage 1 and 2 of the subdivision, the forest extended right to the back yard of the houses in Leo Street for decades with no major issues. If it is essential to manage the fuel load we prefer this to be done in a manner that retains habitat trees, foraging and shelter plants.

When is enough enough, since the redevelopment of the land that has already occurred the flow of rain fall has significantly increased creating problems in many of the houses that already exsist.
It is my understanding that the original submission for these changes have already been rejected by Shoalhaven City Council and should therefore only be able to be reaccessed by them.
There has already been thousands of trees removed, this ofcourse impacts on the local wildlife and regardless of any policy to replant native trees etc this never happens and is never enforced by council.
If this submision even gets reviewed, which I doubt I expect council will stil approve this with no further consultation with the local residents of Narrawallee and certainly no fedback.

I object to the proposal to change the Narrawallee residential subdivision.
Specifically I oppose the complete scrubbing of the northern bush reserve. A range of endangered birds are recorded here, including the powerful owl and Glossy Black Cockatoo. This removes important foraging habitat for them. It removes perches and roosting habitat for the powerful owl and other native bird species. There are also endangered migratory birds that rely on the Swamp Mahogany (for feeding) specifically found in this area The removal of rare large hollows will also have a detrimental effect on bird breeding and the sustainability of some bird species. The provided Fauna and Flora report noted an alert of the cumulative effect of small parcels of land being cleared. So....
I suggest that the southern reserve be converted to residential blocks instead....thereby preserving the forest on the north eastern corner, adjacent to Garrard Reserve and Blake Pl, where a significant number of habitat trees are. The southern reserve consists of an old quarry, degraded land and apparently no habitat trees have been identified there.
I also oppose the halving of the central reserve and especially the clearing of the native vegetation and habitat trees there...for similar reasons to what I have already stated.
I object to the proposed modifcation of the Narrawallee subdivision and ask that all parties honour what was previously agreed to.

Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to the Narrawallee Residential Subdivision. The limited access points to the development and the poor state of the road surface are already going to struggle with the increased traffic without the addition of 22 further blocks. The road surface is already breaking up in many areas. The danger posed by construction traffic to my son and other children in the area is concerning and we simply don't think the road surface will hold up to the traffic in its present state.

The other item of concern is the replacement of a significant wildlife corridor and open reserve space which caters for the increased population of the area. The provision of a croquet clubhouse and court seems to only cater for a narrow section of the community rather than the community as a whole. The shrinking of play and reserve space doesn't seem adequate to provide for the increased population of this area. Cramming more blocks in and making recreational spaces smaller just does not make sense. It appears to be an amendment that is largely driven by financial gain rather than community well being.

Thank you for your consideration and we hope a sensible and balanced approach towards this development can be achieved.

To whom this may concern

I am writing on behalf of my wife and myself to strongly object to this modification (MP 06 0267 MOD 2). We are deeply concerned about how increasing the lot numbers will affect the community. The impact on the roads, surrounding bushland, native wildlife and local resources will be highly effected and a huge strain put on all, in turn loosing the value of why we all live in this beautiful quiet area.
We have spoken to many of our neighbours and we all agree that none of us want this increased lot development to go ahead due to the strain it will place on the surrounding ecosystem and local communities facilities.
This proposal is only benefitting the developer in total disregard to the local community, as the reason why we all live in this area is because it is quiet, the close and pristine ecosystem that borders the community.

Regards

To whom this may concern

I am writing to strongly object to this modification (MP 06 0267 MOD 2). We are deeply concerned about how increasing the lot numbers will affect the community. The impact on the roads, surrounding bushland, native wildlife and local resources will be highly effected and a huge strain put on all, in turn loosing the value of why we all live in this beautiful quiet area.
We have spoken to many of our neighbours and we all agree that none of us want this increased lot development to go ahead due to the strain it will place on the surrounding ecosystem and local communities facilities.
This proposal is only benefitting the developer in total disregard to the local community, as the reason why we all live in this area is because it is quiet, the close and pristine ecosystem that borders the community.

Regards

I wish to oppose the latest proposed changes to the Narrawallee Residential Subdivision.
My reasons being:
1. Narrawalllee is unique, in that it is tucked north of Mollymook with the Narrawallee Inlet being the natural barrier to the North. The natural bush areas, the inlet and the beach allow both residents and visitors to enjoy the natural joys of a coastal environment. This then acts as an extra draw card to the area. Milton (the trendy village along with rural beauty), Mollymook (the beach, shopping, eating and accommodation hub) and Ulladulla (the commercial, shopping, fishing, entertainment and boating town. Currently this is the perfect mix for both visitors and residents. Adding many more small residential lots and man made recreational/park areas at the expense of bush is just not in keeping with the area.
2. Natural bush allows native animals and fauna to survive.
3. The increased number of residential blocks will put even more pressure on the Narrawallee area. The infrastructure is not there. New residential development needs to be in and around Ulladulla. That is the 'city' style town. Narrawallee does not need more and more people, cars, houses, services - I'm surprised the developers are not including a shopping centre too. Guess this will be the next proposed change. Once the essence of an area is lost it is lost forever.
4. This whole public consultation period was shamefully short. Are you trying to rush this through. I have just arrived back from outback volunteering. My husband who has an in depth background in land development and the construction industry is away and unable to contribute. He is certainly not happy with this proposed change

i trust that our say is considered. I know money speaks louder than words.

This estate was started with the inclusion of two large public reserves and the extension to an existing reserve. Construction of the first stages have been completed which include some of the roadways boardering these proposed reserves. This application has now asked for a large portion of these reserves (approx. 70 percent) to be relaced with additional residential blocks. Apart from eliminating recreational areas for local residents it is also allocating a large portion of the Southern reserve for the specific use of a local group (The Croquet Club).This club presently has a setup as part of the existing showground where there is quiet adequate room to accommodate them.
If such a development was to be approved it should be for the use of the broader community ie sports playing fields to accommodate the growing sports clubs created by the increase of residents of all ages moving into these new estates.
There is also the suggestion of the playground area in the Northern reserve. Is this part of the developers obligations or is this going to be provided at a later date by council. This should have been a part of the original submission and approval.
Both these items are now being offered by a developer who has no interest in the local community but more by his own gain of income generated from the 24 additional building.
As a current resident of Seaspray St., these additional blocks will add more through traffic on a street which has only been constructed to a minimum standard both in width and road surface. This surface is already beginning to fall apart after only a short life. When vehicles are legally parked on both sides of the road there is only room for a small car to pass between. This also makes it extremely dangerous for local children and residents who may find themselves stepping into the path of through traffic.This could quite easily be the case during costruction works or in the event of a bushfire requiring the area to be evacuated.
Because of all the issues posed the developer should complete the stages as originally proposed and this submission to increase the number of building blocks and reduce the amount of reserves be denied.

Concerns re amount of unrestricted and fast moving heavy traffic on Leo Drive severely disrupting a quiet residential area. Putting at risk young families, retired people, pets. I live opposite the Leo Drive park (& bus stop) and in the 4 years I have been living here am very concerned at the amount of increased traffic in my area. Could not a traffic control be placed either in the form of a roundabout at Leo Drive & Sagittarius Way, or a speed bump just before the bus stop be considered ? Extra traffic from an expansion of the already very large development in Leo Drive would severely disrupt the residents in Leo Drive and would be very unpopular with my neighbors and residents of Leo Drive.

I strongly object to the proposed amendments. We the ratepayers fought hard to achieve a half-decent development that included green space and considered environmental impacts. 168 housing lots was agreed to and should NOT be increased. Nor should the developer be allowed to add 'active' green spaces. They were meant to be for children to play, to be creative and enjoy nature.

I can't help but wonder if Council is being honest with ratepayers re development applications. Say no to this amendment or risk the community being suspicious of Council's motives and integrity. Stick to the original deal!

If what I heard is true, that Council told the developer it would not maintain any parks within the development, then shame on Council! Isn't that a basic service?

Please make the right decision for the environment and for residences and say no to this proposed amendment.

Narrawallee Residential Subdivision
When this subdivision was first presented for approval the number of
lots was reduced to the current number of 168, which provided for
reasonable traffic flow and with certain road widening gave reasonable
access for busses and trucks. It was accepted that up to 320
additional cars would use the local roads e.g Leo Drive for access and
egress to the new housing. However, the approval of a further 22
building blocks could add up to another 44 vehicles on local roads. It
is requested that this Modification Request is reviewed with these
local traffic and road width issues in mind.
Yours sincerely
(redacted)

I am concerned about the proposed changes to the Southern Reserve in which the reserve is reduced by two thirds of its previously proposed size. The subsequent reduction of the forested ridgeline is not in keeping with the Shoalhaven Council's Narrawallee Inlet Natural Resources Management Strategy. This strategy recommends the protection of the Narrawallee Ridgeline as it is `an important part of the visual setting of coastal settlements' as they `provide the skyline for the urban area'. The proposed reduction of the Southern Reserve would impact greatly on the current natural ridgeline.
The Narrawallee Inlet Natural Resources Management Strategy recommends the protections of the forested ridgeline immediately west of the Narrawallee Township, partly in order to promote tourism. From an individual perspective, the reduction of the ridgeline impacts on those who have purchased properties in the area with the belief that it would be maintained as was indicated in the original development proposal dating back to 2008. Residents are attracted to the Narrawallee area, due to its natural beauty. The 11th hour changes to the development, would significantly impact on the scenic quality, habitat and lifestyle while depreciating the current quality of life.

See attached.

SEE ATTACHED