Trinity Point Mixed Use Development

I strongly object to the Concept State Significant Development (SSD) application for the Trinity Point Drive, Morisset Park site in Lake Macquarie on public exhibition by the NSW Government

Furthermore, I strongly object to the proposed amendments to the planning controls relating to the Trinity Point, Morisset Park site in the Lake Macquarie Local Environmental Plan 2014 and have made a separate submission to that process via the Lake Macquarie City Council portal.


The primary reason for objection is the substantial increase in the Development’s size including the building scale and permitted maximum building height (up to 700%) and significant impact of this on the landscape character and visual amenity for surrounding communities and residents, including the Southern Lake Macquarie communities across the water in the Central Coast LGA.

Built form of the proposed height and scale is extreme compared to the existing planning controls and approved Development, and is not in keeping with the natural landscape and urban amenity of Western, South Western and Southern Lake Macquarie. 

Further, it sets a risky precedent for future development of lands in these communities still yet to be developed, including the neighbouring Morisset Hospital site. 


The proposed planning control requirement and visual impact mitigation to provide an iconic and sustainable design is considered subjective and insufficient mitigation for a building of this substantial height and scale.


It is considered subjective and questionable that a building design featuring “rolling roofs” covered with vegetation will effectively camouflage a building of such scale and address all aspects of what is considered sustainable design. It is considered insufficient that this design is the Development's sole mitigation in response to the visual impact risks identified in its Visual Impact Assessment and in response to the concerns raised by residents and the community.

While vegetation walls and roofs on apartment buildings in cities may have shown to be an effective mechanism for softening visual amenity and reducing heat impacts in urban high-density contexts, it is considered questionable whether this treatment can effectively camouflage buildings of the proposed scale in a landscape that is highly characterised by bushland and the natural environment.

There are also longer term considerations as to whether the vegetation roofs will be sufficiently maintained and protected from deterioration as a result of the harsh Australian climate and biodiversity threats such as pests. Deterioration of vegetation walls and roofs is a common site in cities. Further, there are longer term sustainability considerations regarding water usage associated with maintenance, and the impacts of any fertilisers and past control chemicals on the surrounding environment including stormwater runoff into the lake.

The Visual Impact Statement’s justification that the South Western Lake Macquarie landscape character has already been significantly altered by a marina is considered misrepresentative and irrelevant — rather, it is part of an earlier stage of the approved Development. Similarly is the reference to Vales Point Power Station — rather, it’s critical energy infrastructure formerly owned by State government.

Similarly, claims that existing residential low-density, low-rise housing along the lake foreshore has “significantly” altered landscape character is considered over-reach and incomparable in scale and height of built form. These are also communities that have existed for many decades, are inter-dispersed heavily by trees and vegetation including reserves, State recreation areas and National Parks, and subject to stringent local planning and development controls.

I also object strongly to the helipad and proposed use due to noise impacts on surrounding communities including the Southern and South Eastern communities across the lake in the Central Coast LGA. I note that the noise impact assessment did not include these communities in the noise catchment and study area, despite stating that helicopter movements to and from the site would be primarily from the South and South-East directions. Nor were these communities included in the community consultation distribution areas. It is considered that the noise impact assessment and supporting community engagement should be undertaken again to include these communities in the study area (including Summerland Point).

The Developer’s lack of consultation with the impacted residents and communities to the South and South East of the Development across the lake in the Central Coast LGA (including Summerland Point) in relation to both the current application process and previous Development proposals and amendments should be noted. I did not realise a helipad had been previously approved as part of the Development, despite being an impacted resident and the strong ongoing opposition by residents and the community.

Over the years I, like many residents of Western, South Western and Southern Lake Macquarie including the Central Coast LGA, have come to accept the approved Development on the Trinity Point site. However the volume of amendments the Developer has submitted over the years has created continued uncertainty for surrounding residents and communities which has taken a toll on morale and wellbeing, community trust and the credibly of the Developer and local and State planning authorities. The long-running objections and concerns held by residents in relation to the helipad and noise impacts should also be noted.

The community consultation undertaken by the Developer in preparation for its Concept SSD application and proposed planning controls amendments is considered grossly inadequate in terms of breadth and mechanisms for engaging impacted residents and communities beyond the immediately adjacent communities of Morisset Park, Brightwaters and Bonnells Bay.

The Developer failed to engage impacted residents and communities to the South and South East of the Development in the Central Coast LGA. This is despite impacts to these communities identified in several of the SSD study reports and DPE and Lake Macquarie City Council identifying these residents as impacted and issuing them official Notification of Exhibitions letters.

As an impacted resident in a waterfront property in Summerland Point, I have not received any information on the Developer’s proposal nor an invitation or mechanism to view the plans and provide feedback until I received the Public Exhibition letters from DPE and Council. I am extremely disappointed to see in the SSDA that community consultation was undertaken from November 2021 to January 2022, yet a significant proportion of impacted residents and the community had no knowledge or opportunity to participate.

Based on this failure to engage a significant proportion of impacted community and residents, the community engagement is considered not to meet the legislative requirements for engagement to support SSD application preparation and process.

The proposed Concept designs and planning control amendments are considered an increase of such extreme scale and impact compared to the existing controls and approved development, that not only are they not in keeping with the landscape character and have significant impacts on amenity and residents, but they are considered to erode community trust and the credibility of the Development’s intentions as well as local and State planning controls and authorities.

Residents generally accept that development of vacant land in these quiet Lake Macquarie and Central Coast communities is inevitable and that it brings benefits to the community and local and State economies. But at the same time, residents expect development to be undertaken sustainably in accordance with appropriate planning controls and community engagement guidelines so as to protect our environment and the character of our local landscape and communities.

NSW Government and Lake Macquarie City Council have an opportunity to take development learnings in other NSW communities and avoid the same mistakes, as they progress aspirations to grow and develop the region and position themselves as leaders in sustainability.

I strongly object to the Concept State Significant Development (SSD) application for the Trinity Point Drive, Morisset Park site in Lake Macquarie on public exhibition by the NSW Government

Furthermore, I strongly object to the proposed amendments to the planning controls relating to the Trinity Point, Morisset Park site in the Lake Macquarie Local Environmental Plan 2014 and have made a separate submission to that process via the Lake Macquarie City Council portal.


The primary reason for objection is the substantial increase in the Development’s size including the building scale and permitted maximum building height (up to 700%) and significant impact of this on the landscape character and visual amenity for surrounding communities and residents, including the Southern Lake Macquarie communities across the water in the Central Coast LGA.

Built form of the proposed height and scale is extreme compared to the existing planning controls and approved Development, and is not in keeping with the natural landscape and urban amenity of Western, South Western and Southern Lake Macquarie. 

Further, it sets a risky precedent for future development of lands in these communities still yet to be developed, including the neighbouring Morisset Hospital site. 


The proposed planning control requirement and visual impact mitigation to provide an iconic and sustainable design is considered subjective and insufficient mitigation for a building of this substantial height and scale.


It is considered subjective and questionable that a building design featuring “rolling roofs” covered with vegetation will effectively camouflage a building of such scale and address all aspects of what is considered sustainable design. It is considered insufficient that this design is the Development's sole mitigation in response to the visual impact risks identified in its Visual Impact Assessment and in response to the concerns raised by residents and the community.

While vegetation walls and roofs on apartment buildings in cities may have shown to be an effective mechanism for softening visual amenity and reducing heat impacts in urban high-density contexts, it is considered questionable whether this treatment can effectively camouflage buildings of the proposed scale in a landscape that is highly characterised by bushland and the natural environment.

There are also longer term considerations as to whether the vegetation roofs will be sufficiently maintained and protected from deterioration as a result of the harsh Australian climate and biodiversity threats such as pests. Deterioration of vegetation walls and roofs is a common site in cities. Further, there are longer term sustainability considerations regarding water usage associated with maintenance, and the impacts of any fertilisers and past control chemicals on the surrounding environment including stormwater runoff into the lake.

The Visual Impact Statement’s justification that the South Western Lake Macquarie landscape character has already been significantly altered by a marina is considered misrepresentative and irrelevant — rather, it is part of an earlier stage of the approved Development. Similarly is the reference to Vales Point Power Station — rather, it’s critical energy infrastructure formerly owned by State government.

Similarly, claims that existing residential low-density, low-rise housing along the lake foreshore has “significantly” altered landscape character is considered over-reach and incomparable in scale and height of built form. These are also communities that have existed for many decades, are inter-dispersed heavily by trees and vegetation including reserves, State recreation areas and National Parks, and subject to stringent local planning and development controls.

I also object strongly to the helipad and proposed use due to noise impacts on surrounding communities including the Southern and South Eastern communities across the lake in the Central Coast LGA. I note that the noise impact assessment did not include these communities in the noise catchment and study area, despite stating that helicopter movements to and from the site would be primarily from the South and South-East directions. Nor were these communities included in the community consultation distribution areas. It is considered that the noise impact assessment and supporting community engagement should be undertaken again to include these communities in the study area (including Summerland Point).

The Developer’s lack of consultation with the impacted residents and communities to the South and South East of the Development across the lake in the Central Coast LGA (including Summerland Point) in relation to both the current application process and previous Development proposals and amendments should be noted. I did not realise a helipad had been previously approved as part of the Development, despite being an impacted resident and the strong ongoing opposition by residents and the community.

Over the years I, like many residents of Western, South Western and Southern Lake Macquarie including the Central Coast LGA, have come to accept the approved Development on the Trinity Point site. However the volume of amendments the Developer has submitted over the years has created continued uncertainty for surrounding residents and communities which has taken a toll on morale and wellbeing, community trust and the credibly of the Developer and local and State planning authorities. The long-running objections and concerns held by residents in relation to the helipad and noise impacts should also be noted.

The community consultation undertaken by the Developer in preparation for its Concept SSD application and proposed planning controls amendments is considered grossly inadequate in terms of breadth and mechanisms for engaging impacted residents and communities beyond the immediately adjacent communities of Morisset Park, Brightwaters and Bonnells Bay.

The Developer failed to engage impacted residents and communities to the South and South East of the Development in the Central Coast LGA. This is despite impacts to these communities identified in several of the SSD study reports and DPE and Lake Macquarie City Council identifying these residents as impacted and issuing them official Notification of Exhibitions letters.

As an impacted resident in a waterfront property in Summerland Point, I have not received any information on the Developer’s proposal nor an invitation or mechanism to view the plans and provide feedback until I received the Public Exhibition letters from DPE and Council. I am extremely disappointed to see in the SSDA that community consultation was undertaken from November 2021 to January 2022, yet a significant proportion of impacted residents and the community had no knowledge or opportunity to participate.

Based on this failure to engage a significant proportion of impacted community and residents, the community engagement is considered not to meet the legislative requirements for engagement to support SSD application preparation and process.

The proposed Concept designs and planning control amendments are considered an increase of such extreme scale and impact compared to the existing controls and approved development, that not only are they not in keeping with the landscape character and have significant impacts on amenity and residents, but they are considered to erode community trust and the credibility of the Development’s intentions as well as local and State planning controls and authorities.

Residents generally accept that development of vacant land in these quiet Lake Macquarie and Central Coast communities is inevitable and that it brings benefits to the community and local and State economies. But at the same time, residents expect development to be undertaken sustainably in accordance with appropriate planning controls and community engagement guidelines so as to protect our environment and the character of our local landscape and communities.

NSW Government and Lake Macquarie City Council have an opportunity to take development learnings in other NSW communities and avoid the same mistakes, as they progress aspirations to grow and develop the region and position themselves as leaders in sustainability.

see attachment

The scope of the project is incompatible with the surrounding infrastructure (especially traffic)

I think this new development looks great.
As a farmer looking to retire soon, this type of good quality, mixed facility on the beautiful Lake Macquarie is very inviting.
As we have had the luxury of space living on a farm at Peats Ridge, retiring next to the lake and having a boat to enjoy the space on the lake is something to look forward too.
Being not too close and not too far away from Sydney, I think this is the ideal spot for this type of development .
Best regards Sam Dominello

• I object to the proposal and am providing comment.
My submission is specifically in reference to : Appendix O: Trinity, Lake Macquarie Point Traffic Impact Assessment by the Transport Planning Partnership (TTPP)
My greatest concern in relation to this development is the impact the development will have on the local surrounding community in relation to infrastructure pressures.
I have found serious flaws in their analyses and obfuscation of facts, including subjective evaluations based on a mass of irrelevant statistics.
TTPP conclude after providing their detailed study into neighbourhood traffic conditions and for three scenarios, that this “proposed development for a mixed-use tourist, hospitality, and residential outcome, including a 300-seat function centre, 600 m2 of restaurant space, 224 hotel rooms/suites and 180 residential apartments” will not significantly impact the traffic flow along the only single main artery along the peninsula leading into Trinity Point.
Flaws in the TTPP assessment:
1) TTPP assume that people going to the restaurants, gym and conference facility will mainly be coming from the Trinity Point development itself. As has been stated elsewhere in the development application, the restaurant alone has drawn in customers from the Morisset and surrounding districts over the past few years to enhance options for the local community. So why would they expect that that would not continue? Surely a percentage of those going to the restaurant would NOT just be coming from the development itself. More than 60% might be coming from the local community and beyond. (My estimate against their estimate of 0% or ‘not many”. This needs to be accurately investigated and a realistic number given for how many cars will be added to this single road artery whenever those facilities are open. (including during school hours at the local Public school situated on that road.
Additionallty, every person there will have to have travelled there by car, via the Mannering Park Rd, unless they arrived by helicopter, and they would commute from the Trinity Point Facility to various locations such as Morisset, and the Hunter/Newcastle region. This was not accounted for in their assessment.
2) The second assumption is that all the local residents would be unlikely to use that main artery as they would be most likely to use Charles Ave and Henry Road thanks to their local knowledge. I think the real scenario is that local residents would be forced to use the other road in order to avoid lengthy traffic delays because of the volume of traffic heading to or from the Trinity Point development.
3) Their assessment only includes the impact that the Trinity Point Development would have on the local arterial Roads in the next ten years. They concur that more developments would likely take place on the peninsula in future years, impacting the volume of traffic on the road, however, these potential added increases have not been considered in their final assessment. They would in fact make a considerable contribution to the increased volume of traffic on an artery not designed to take that number of vehicles.
4) My greatest concern is the Bonnells Bay Public school situated at the intersection of Fishery Point Road and Morisset Park Road. Locals know how congested that intersection already is, during school hours, and lengthy waiting times are making that intersection a bottleneck twice a day. It is also dangerous because of the angle at which Fishery Point Road joins Morisset Park Road. Viewing in both directions from Fishery Point Road is extremely difficult because of the acute angle at which the driver has to check for traffic heading along Morisset Park Road on their way into Morisset from further out on the Peninsula.
5) I’m finding it hard to be convinced that an extra 200 to 300 vehicles using a single artery is ‘acceptable’ in terms of traffic delays that will be incurred on local residents. I feel that this might be a very subjective evaluation. What is acceptable to one person is not necessarily ‘acceptable’ to the person who now has to wait double or triple the time while an extra 200 or 300 cars are travelling on that main artery.
Developers should have a responsibility for upgrading, widening, or improving this road so that it doesn’t come out of the pocket of the local taxpayers whose only ‘reward’ is ‘acceptable’ increases in waiting time and increased risks to children at the local primary school who have no choice but to use this intersection. A road bypassing this intersection might be a more realistic assessment from the TTPP. And a widening to two lanes as well as introduction of traffic lights at the Primary school. The developer should be required to pay for the cost of this infrastructure as part of their development.
6) To say that this “proposed development for a mixed-use tourist, hospitality, and residential outcome, including a 300-seat function centre, 600 m2 of restaurant space, 224 hotel rooms/suites and 180 residential apartments” Is not going to make traffic on a single arterial road into the peninsula increase to any significant degree, defies belief. Flawed arguments have been given with subjective evaluations such as ‘acceptable’ increases have been given to justify the developers doing nothing to improve the burden their development will create on the local community. The traffic that would be generated by a development of this size, whichever way you look at it, is going to have a significant impact of traffic movement and affect the traffic at the current hot spot of the primary school. Why have the figures been underplayed, so that they come out on the side of the developers?

Please find attached an objection to Trinity Point development on behalf of the residents of Mannering Park and the members of the Mannering Park Precinct Committee who will be affected by this development.
At the last precinct meeting on the 21st November 2022 a motion was passed to write to the department of planning and environment to object to the current proposals.

Neil wynn Treasurer.

I object to the planning proposal & SSD on the following grounds.
HEIGHT of BUILDINGS. The backdrop to this developement being Morrosset Hills which has an average height of 30- 35 mtrs plus a small area reaching 40mtrs. The Trinity point proposal extending to 42mtrs would be competative & overpowering rather than harmonious to the natural enviroment. My fisrt impression when viewing the Architects concept design images was one of a Helter skelter ryde in a theme park, rather than representing the undulating hills of Morrosset
The Proposed development is far to high & should be greatly reduced to meld in with the surounding terain. A further design consideration could incorporate a tiered setback to mitigate the vertical dominance of this building.
The development is also situated fairly close to the foreshore. this seems to be out of step with other developed areas around the Lakes foreshore, eg, Toronto, Spears Pt, Warners Bay, Belmont, all these arears have have high-rise developments but also have significant setbacks from there foreshore, which reduces the impact of overshadowing buildings.
HELIPAD: The proposed Helipad is of great concern to many residence in our street, ourselves included.
This Helipad situated out on the water & accessed by the Mariner jetty represents considerable exposure to high winds that the lake is subject to. Being on the water also exsentuates the noise of these flying craft.
as water surfaces do not absorb noise [ It bounces ]. The residence of summerland pt & Gwandalan are in a direcr line for Noise transference from Trinity pt with no objects of mitigation between us.
There is also no indication of how the helicopters operation will affect watercraft users on the Lake, ei, Sailing clubs, Fishing personel, Jet Skis, Kayakers, & the like, who all are regular users of the lake waters.
This issue is potentially very dangerous & needs deliberation & further consultation with all concerned. It also appears to conflict with LEP 7.6.3.D & 7.6.3.e. I am not in favour of this service being at this location.
Thankyou for considering my submission.
regards,
Summerland pt , Resident.

15th Dec 2022

To Whom it may concern,

I’d firstly like to start by saying that I’m not against a development in this location. The restaurant that the Johnsons have developed is fantastic and I see this area as having great potential for an iconic boutique hotel development and residential area.
I felt the need to object based on a few concerns and factors listed below.
Infrastructure & Safety:
The current infrastructure and amenities do not support a development of this size and bulk.
Concerns include –
1. If there was a large fire in this area or in one of these high-rise buildings, the closest hospital is some distance away, (over 30kms) in Wyong, (30mins) or Belmont (30mins). A single road in and out of this area only adds to these concerns and so does an area surrounded by national park and bushland.
2. The single road in or out of this peninsula is quite congested during peak hour so, increasing the traffic to the extent this development would create only more issues. The proposal mentions a conference centre that houses 300 guests alone, I can only imagine that getting in and out of this area would become very difficult.
3. There aren’t enough doctors in this area – increasing the number of residents to this extent would only aggravate this.
4. The Bonnells Bay shopping centre amenities and parking are limited and were not built to service or accommodate as many people that this new plan proposes. Perhaps a retail grocery shop should be considered as part of this proposal if a development of this magnitude goes ahead.

5. Helipad:

I understand the helipad has been approved in some form already but as Johnson has a history of pushing the envelope, for example, recently advertising seaplanes from Sydney to the restaurant 8 at Trinity, (when flight zones prohibit it) and so this only adds to my concerns. If the helipad element and its current guidelines and/ or restrictions are reviewed as part of this process a new noise study would need to be performed. I’ve heard that the LMLEP 2014 guidelines do not allow helipads, if this is the case, I’m sure these guides were in place for a reason and I’m unsure of the benefit in overruling them.

I don’t really understand how the positives outweigh the negatives of a helipad for any new and existing residents - or any tourist for that matter. They are incredibly noisy and are benefit to very few people. I wouldn’t want to live anywhere near a helipad, and I don’t see this as an attractive prospect for potential purchasers of apartments or tourists, therefore I see it as detracting from the value proposition of this whole development.

6. Design Excellence:
I believe this concept is not in keeping with the landscape or streetscape. The bulk and massing are totally out of step with the local character. The previously approved heights were 16m, 12m and 6m, which are much more in keeping with the location, (that currently consists of low-density double or single storey, detached houses). The new heights of 34-42 meters or up to 14 storeys in height is a huge leap, (up to 700%) and the concept renders do not show the full extent of the size or possible storeys, (they show approx. 8-10 storeys which could be seen as misleading).

I have concerns with green roof design. Although I love an organic shaped green roof as a concept, in reality would this slope be climbable or scalable? Would this pose a safety concern? Would it be flammable if water restrictions were imposed, and plants dried out? Would water usage to maintain a green roof negate any sustainable aspect? There appears to be no solar power space allowance, so in what way is this a sustainable building project? I cannot see evidence of green star rating in the planning or design.

The increase in FSR looks to be due to the desire to create more money from residential property. Originally it seems there was an intent that this area would be a tourist destination, this agenda appears to have been reduced from the approved DA. I would have loved to have seen more of a Bannisters Hotel style and sized development, which seems more aligned with the original intent and approval. Although there would be financial gain for the developer from an increase in FSR, plus jobs created from the builders and workforce needed to create such a large development in the short-term, I think the long-term vision needs greater consideration and weight.

In the long-term Boutique developments are a great and treasured draw card for visitors looking for the natural beauty and peace this area is renowned for. The employment of locals in such a development would certainly be easier to create and maintain into the future. The size and massing of this newly proposed development would be tricky to staff with the current restaurant alone always advertising for more help on every e-newsletter. This new design proposal takes away from what makes this area so great and why people love coming here.

I see this newly proposed concept as better suited to a city or somewhere with higher density zoning. Even Morisset Town Centre would be a better position for such high and large buildings. It would make much more sense from a planning perspective given the new Cedar Mill development - where large numbers of tourists could potentially walk back to their accommodation after a concert instead of clogging up relatively small arterial roads.

There isn’t enough public green space in this proposed design. The sight lines to the water, (although clever in their use of building angles) aren’t enough. Locals have lost a lot of useable foreshore and visual connection to the water with only a small foreshore walkway. Further to this if this is to be seen as a tourist and event destination, where would you be able to get married outside? There doesn’t appear to be any green foreshore areas large enough for an event or ceremony. A larger green space and or gardens on the water side would be desirable to locals and visitors alike and would add flexibility to the space in terms of public and private event planning etc.

Overall, I don’t believe a curved green roof constitutes design excellence. The connection to the natural landscape and water have been lost to hugely oversized built forms. There is no balanced approach to the site plan in terms of green space and public amenity, and it has not been designed in sympathy with its environment or infratrcuture.
In conclusion the previously approved DA’s height, (16m, 12m and 6m) building forms and plans were more in keeping with this location. I’m sure with refinement and design they could have been a great asset to the developer, guests and residents of this beautiful area.
Thank you for considering these objections to the new development at Trinity Point. It’s up to all of us to create a legacy we can all enjoy and be proud of.

Regards,
A local resident of this peninsula

See attached letter

I would like to object to this proposal as it is way too much development for this area and the site.
Council has building height limits for a good reason and these limits should not be allowed to be over-ridden.
The local road network is already at capacity due to the increased population and cannot support the amount of traffic this over development would bring.
The health of the lake would suffer more as there is already a lot more pollution coming from the Trinity Point marina and development
Johnson was supposed to be fixing the intersection of Fishery Point Road and Morisset Park Road under approval of previous applications and to date this has not happened
I hope that the objections of the many people that are opposed to this development will be taken into account as long after decisions are made we, the local residents have to live with consequences of those decisions
thank you

Please see attached my objection to the current height proposal of the trinity point development.

Neil Wynn.

In response to the Trinity Point Mixed Use Tourism and Residential Development.

I would ask the Department of Planning and the Environment to reject the proposal on the grounds of the following;
1. Allowing a new building height of 42 metres is not just a significant increase in building height, but an increase of several multiple times the current allowed building height. This will completely change the visual aspects on the local area and around the local area, which isn’t consistent with the current buildings in the area. In short it will look terrible and stick out of the landscape rather than blend into the environment. The original building heights of 6 metres (mainly), 12 metres and 16 metres, although went too far, is better suited to the location. People living in this area and who have moved into the area did so and continued to do so on the belief that the development would adhere to the current approved building heights. To change this adversely affects all of these people in the local area for the profit of others. People didn’t move to this area to live in another city if they wished to do so they would have chosen to live in Sydney or Newcastle.
2. This whole development is being built in lake flooding control lots. Global warming will cause further sea level rises over the next thirty years and no doubt the lake level will rise. The building(s) in specifically lot 69C and 81 will no doubt be impacted on an ongoing basis by flooding. Which has played out all too frequently during 2022 right around Australia, where local governments have allowed development in flood prone areas.
3. Allowing to build 224 tourism units, 180 residential units, 600 seats at two restaurants, a 300 seat conference centre, small business and retail outlets, and for the workers to service all of this but not providing the parking to handle all of these people who would be potentially coming and going with only 611 car spaces. There is simply not enough parking for all of these people to come and go.
4. Allowing the above mention units and business to be built but with the lack of public transport in the area for both buses, and not enough parking at the local train station.
5. Allowing buildings of this size and number changes the whole area, and there would be a dramatic increase in traffic into and out of Trinity Point, this will increase noise to the detriment of current residents.
6. A Helipad has already been approved to be used which was a mistake, although for now not used, building more of them is in no interest for the general public, we should not be encouraging non environmentally unsustainable transport, that creates much more impact by the way of noise for people in the local area and at detriment to the environment.
7. As there is only one road in and out of the area and potentially over 1,000 vehicles could be coming and going on a daily basis the current road infrastructure would not cope with a development like this. Nearly all the streets in Trinity Point / Morisset Park have been built very narrowly, therefore not allowing for the free following of traffic in the area and not available for street parking.
8. Lack of any park land / public use land for local residents why isn’t any park land been included in this development?
9. Why isn’t a development like this built adjacent to major transport hubs for example railway station, bus terminal, major freeway, shopping centres, medical centres, the new slip and slide and Concert stadium and other small business in a Town Centre where good planning would dictate that it should be, like for example Morisset?

I outline my objections in the attachment.

I strongly object to the project. please see attachment

I object to the height restriction being raised to 8 stories. This does not fit in with the natural environment and sets a precedent for the whole of Lake Macquarie. There is no current infrastructure (roads/traffic) to support this type of large development.