See attached PDF document

Attention:
Fiona Gibson - Acting Team Leader - Modification Assessments
Department of Planning and Environment

Exhibition of Modification Request for PacLib Printing Warehouse and Distribution Facility, Erskine Park - MP 08_0016 Mod 3
Lot 2 DP 1203886, Lenore Drive, Erskine Park

I refer to the above modification application and your email dated 18 April 2016 inviting comments. Council has examined the proposal and documentation provided in support. Generally, Council has no objection to the proposed modifications however the following comments are provided for your consideration:

o Large expanses of wall (eastern end of the southern elevation) are still proposed at the street frontage which should be broken up with by the use of additional architectural treatments, building articulation, fenestration and a variety of external finishes in terms of both colour and type of material used.

o The proposed modifications reduce the prominence of the office component of the building. The presentation of the office building component was considered to be a key aspect of the development. The revised proposal is considered to be of significantly less architectural merit and its design does little to minimise perceived scale and mass. Although the development is located within an industrial estate the architectural design is important to prevent monotonous building forms resulting from poor design of walls or rooflines.

o The modification will increase the visual prominence of the servicing requirements for the buildings such as the sprinkler tank. These aspects of the development should not be located within the front setback or be visible from public places. These requirements should be integrated with the building and landscaping design.

o All front fencing shall be located behind the landscape setback and not along the front boundary, be a maximum height of 2.1m and of an `open' nature. Such fencing should be black powder coat steel palisade fencing similar to that existing through the estate.

Should you require any further information or would like to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact me on (02) 4732 7522

Yours faithfully

Mathew Rawson
Senior Environmental Planner

Dear Ben

EXHIBITION OF MODIFICATION REQUEST FOR HONEYSUCKLE CENTRAL, LOT 25 HONEYSUCKLE DRIVE, NEWCASTLE (MP08_0043 MOD 1)

I wish to make a submission on behalf of Hunter Development Corporation (HDC) in regards to the above project. As you are aware, this project is on land owned by HDC who has a contract with the Purchaser for the Development of this project.

As part of that contract, the Purchaser (in this case Buildev) must obtain approval from HDC to make any modifications to the Project Approval MP08_0043.

HDC supports and has provided approval to the following aspects of this modification:

 Proposed changes as per Insite report dated March 2011 addressing condition B6 Further Building and Landscaping Re-Design
 Amended building plans by Suters dated March 2011
 Amended landscape plans and report by Terras dated March 2011
 Additional modification request to condition B10 ESD 4.5 Star NABERS Energy to specify Base Building

However, Buildev failed to submit to HDC for review the additional modification request for condition B10 ESD 5 Star Green Star rating or obtain HDC approval. HDC has written to Buildev advising them of this omission which has resulted in a breach of contract. Until HDC and Buildev have agreed to any modification to condition B10 ESD 5 Star Green Star, HDC wishes to lodge an objection to this additional modification request.

HDC and Buildev are continuing discussions to address the 5 Star Green Star requirement, and HDC hopes to resolve this matter soon and will advise DP&I as soon as this occurs. Until then, HDC requests that DP&I not delay assessing the remainder of modifications requests submitted.

Yours sincerely

Jacob Whiting

With regards to the Modification request for Honeysuckle Hotel - Planik
Pty Ltd MP05_0007MOD3 I just wanted to submit the following comment: I
come from a small business background and appreciate and understand
that the Honeysuckle Hotel may need to extend their opening hours in
order to make their business a viable and prosperous one. I also know
that owning a small business requires one to put in long hours. My
average working week is 60-70 hours. It does mean that as selfish as
this may sound, I also value sleep. I don't foresee that the
additional outdoor dining area extended trading hours will necessarily
be an issue. Honeysuckle Hotel should do a brisk trade from this
improved outdoor dining area during existing opening hours. The issue
is with what happens after patrons leave the venue. Even if patrons
are not inebriated, their banter as they congregate to say their
farewells outside the venue, then slowly walk to the car park, train
station, taxi rank or where ever... carries up to apartments. Even
with every double glazed window closed you can hear their
conversations clearly. It usually takes half an hour to an hour after
close of business for the noise level to drop. If patrons are
inebriated you can treble the noise level. Banter and farewells turn
into swearing, taunts, dares and fights. It takes these people much
longer to move on. They can also be quite destructive to the property
of commercial businesses and residents alike. I note that the extended
opening hours are 'on a trial basis'. I am yet to discover how long
the trial goes for but perhaps this trial will be the fairest way to
assess exactly what the ramifications will be to longer opening hours.
I suspect I know the outcome: once the extended hours are granted,
they will not be altered and inebriated characters screaming and
yelling at each other as they find their way home along the
Honeysuckle foreshore precinct will exist beyond midnight 7 days a
week. I'd prefer the trading hours to remain as they are.

We have no objection to the amendments provided the extended trading
hours and changes to the outdoor seating relate only to the northern
deck area of the hotel. The hotel has in fact 2 deck areas one
northern and one southern. If the hotel were to be allowed to extend
the seating and trading hours on the southern deck this would have a
significantly deleterious impact on the nearby residences. If this is
what is sought we would strenuously object.

I strongly oppose the modification request (MP 05_0007 MOD 3) for
Honeysuckle Hotel, Lee Wharf Building C. Extension of the northern
desk would significantly reduce the public access to the walkway
around the Hotel. As a resident of Honeysuckle Drive for over five
years, I can report that existing public seating in the area is under
utilised and there is little public benefit for adding more chairs and
tables to the deck beyond profits for the Honeysuckle Hotel. The
Honeysuckle Hotel currently generates significant noise. This is
generated from its regular live music, patrons in the outdoor areas
and from patrons exiting at the end of the night. Extending the
trading hours of the outdoor deck area would cause a significant
nuisance to residents of Honeysuckle Drive. Residents would be exposed
to longer and later periods of outside noise from patrons. Residents
would also be exposed to more patron noise from Hotel patrons walking
to and from the Hotel. It is common event to observe patrons leaving
the Honeysuckle Hotel generating significant noise (talking, laughing,
shouting and screaming) and other anti-social behaviours (e.g.
urinating in boat sculpture in Worth Place Park) with the current
indoor operating hours. Typically this is in short bursts of excessive
noise at late hours. The current operation of moving outside patrons
into the inner Hotel early in the evening helps to reduce late night
nuisance to residents. Extending the trading hours of the outdoor deck
area would encourage Hotel patrons to spend longer outside and thus
generate more outside noise. The later hours would generate greater
nuisance noise as the ambient sounds in the area are reduced at night
and the sound of patrons on the deck area would travel. I see no
public benefit for extending the outside hours and only more nuisance
noise to residents. Thus I object to the proposal.

Please see below my objection to the Modification Request Application
Number MP 05_0007 MOD 3. I am a resident at 7 Honeysuckle Drive and
will be adversely affected by any changes to the currently approved
activities at the Honeysuckle Hotel. The additional outdoor dining
will result in noise levels being increased. The Acoustical Assessment
is flawed because the noise monitoring was done over a limited,
off-season timeframe and in locations that are not sufficiently
defined or in locations that are not those closest to the residential
sites that would be most affected by the proposed modification. The
patron noise assessment projections are incorrect as they assume 96
additional patrons speaking with a `normal voice' dBA level, whereas
patrons will be using `loud' or `shouting' voice dBA levels, to be
heard over any music being played at the venue and other patrons,
especially as the patrons become more intoxicated. The first
recommendation listed in the Acoustical Assessment (no amplified
music) is insufficiently specific as amplified music is already coming
from within the hotel on some occasions. The third recommendation
listed in the Acoustical Assessment (reminder sign) will not be heeded
by patrons who are most likely to cause noise and disturbance at any
time, especially late at night, and who tend to congregate outside the
venue. The `general operating hours' listed on the Honeysuckle Hotel
website are : Mon - Thu 10am - 11pm, Fri - Sat 10am - 12:30am and
Sunday 10am - 10pm. The currently approved trading hours for the
existing outside dining area are not listed. The trading hours for the
outside deck area should be limited to : Mon - Thu 10am - 10pm, Fri -
Sat 10am - 11:30pm and Sunday 10am - 9pm. The existing northern deck
should be maintained for public access, rather than developed for
additional outdoor dining. The existing outdoor deck provides a clear
safety exit from the premises, and as such would be obstructed by the
installation of an additional dining area. A key issue, not addressed
in any of the supporting documents, is the issue of `moving on' noisy,
generally intoxicated, patrons exiting the Honeysuckle Hotel, after
the official closing times. This issue should be addressed as a matter
of priority. Whilst it is illegal to serve alcohol to intoxicated
patrons, we are often disturbed on Friday and Saturday nights, by loud
voices from intoxicated patrons exiting the Honeysuckle Hotel. This is
not only a noise issue for local residents, but represents a security
issue.

My wife and I are TOTALLY OPPOSED to the proposed Modification Request -
Honeysuckle Hotel, Lee Wharf Building C, Newcastle. It is
inappropriate for the following reasons: 1.The hotel occupies an
attractive building on Lee Wharf bookended by the Maritime Museum. The
proposal would destroy the visual beauty of Lee Wharf and ruin the
integrity of the historic wharf precinct. 2,Proposed new balustrading
and outdoor dining area on the northern deck would significantly raise
the noise level (unless enclosed). Outdoor trading should be minimised
where the area is shared by residents. 3.The proposal to extend
trading hours is grossly unfair to the residents of hundreds of
apartments overlooking the harbour who would bear the inconvenience of
drunk and disorderly patrons leaving the hotel at the intended
extended late hours. Believe me, the rowdy behaviour of people leaving
the Honeysuckle Hotel is an unpleasant reality we live with but do not
want it extended! 4.The Hunter Development Corporation has developed a
sympathetic mix of beautiful residential / commercial buildings along
the waterfront at Honeysuckle Drive. Lee Wharf is a family friendly
gathering place which attracts locals and tourists by day and night.
Lee Wharf already has several licensed premises and cafes, all of whom
seemingly trade successfully within the current laws. Any change would
entirely change the character of the precinct.