Adrienne McGilvery
38/9 Milray Street
Lindfield NSW 2070

28 January 2013

NSW Govt Dept of Planning & Infrastructure
Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Modification Request for Mixed Use Development MP08_0244 MOD 1
Access to Exhibition Documents
Firstly I was disappointed that the Request was not on physical exhibition and that I was required to access the documents via the web. I would have preferred to attend a library or other physical location to view and read the documents and make my own notes prior to lodging my submission.
Removal of third level of basement car parking
I refer to the Overview of the Proposed Modifications to the Development, in particular section 2.1. I disagree with the removal of the third level of basement car parking, in particular the removal of 34 car spaces within the basement. In my own apartment complex, I have found most residents have two cars per lot. Notwithstanding that fact, many purchasers have proceeded to purchase lots with only one car space and those purchasers have then resorted to parking in the street. This is not a satisfactory solution. I would therefore urge that all lots have a minimum of one car space and in most instances that the two bedroom lots be provided with two car spaces. To my mind the shortfall in the provision of car parking for residents is not acceptable.
Amendments to the size and shape of the residential towers
I also object to the amendments to the size and shape of the residential towers fronting both Lindfield Avenue and Havilah Lane by the provision of 21 additional units and amendment to the apartment mix. I believe there should be more 3 bedroom apartments and less 1 bedroom apartments. Many people along the north shore are downsizing and notwithstanding the fact there are more people living alone, they still require apartments which can accommodate visiting friends, children and grandchildren. The part of the building which projects over Kochia Lane to the south is aesthetically displeasing.

Increase in overall building height - Lindfield Tower 4.28 m and Halilah Lane Tower 4.52 m
I believe the increase in the height of the towers puts the scale of the development out of proportion for the site and relationship to existing buildings, particular those existing apartments on Kochia Lane. The height control set out in the draft LEP should be adopted. Residents in Kochia Lane apartments will be overshadowed by the height of the proposed modification.
Bike parking
I note the provision of a total of 75 bike parking spaces. This is a joke. Within my complex of 57 lots, there are only a handful of bike riders. Downsizers of advanced age with little experience of bike riding are not going to take up bike riding on busy roads and in a hilly district such as Lindfield even with all the best intentions of getting fit and "greener". Consideration should be given to converting the bike parking spaces to car parking spaces which would be more likely to be used.
Traffic
I refer to the Varga Traffic Planning report dated 10 December 2012. There is a need for an upgrade to the existing nearby roads and intersections, in particular, the Pacific Highway and Havilah Street/Balfour street intersection which is currently saturated at peak hour and I would expect future traffic demands to be increased. I have chosen to leave my abode and return home at times when I consider the intersection is not operating "at capacity". I consider the current level of service to be "E" (see pg 23 of the report).
Overall comment
I object to the increase in height, the reduced number of car spaces and the reduction in mix of units within the blocks. I also am fearful of the increase in traffic in this vicinity; it is already at capacity and will be further stressed during construction of this development.
Yours sincerely

Adrienne McGilvery

I object to the change to parking conditions and the reduction to the retail space. Lindfield requires much more parking as it is a mayor rail and bus transport hub. In addition Lindfield retail facilities are too small and do not cater for the increasing population.

I am deeply disturbed at proposed changes.

Car parking is already at a premium in Lindfield due to existing occupied apartments and increased commuter parking all day for the train station. New apartments in Tryon / Milray are not occupied yet and will further add to the parking issues even without this development. Commuters park every day for the train access, right down all surrounding streets north and south and east including Russell Avenue, Middle harbour road and Trafalgar for instance. The existing council car park at the shops is very often full with shoppers or church goers etc and locals often cannot park to shop at all.
Reduction of carparks with thte proposed apartments will be a disaster and even worse in the future. Any new apartments should be forced to make available, the maximum FREE carparks for shoppers in the local area (and restrictions should apply of course, on time limits etc).

I also strongly object to reduction in retail. We need more, better , upmarket (people will pay for quality I assure you) retail, not less! Lindfield desperately needs improved retail at this location. I don't WANT to go to Chatswood for my shopping, I WANT to support the little guys, our LOCAL guys. I don't want to see their businesses fail! If retail space is reduced, the lease costs will skyrocket, prices will go up, businesses will fail to thrive and soon people will not shop here at all and it will become a 'white elephant'. Apartment dwellers are NOT the big spenders - it is the surrounding locals who frequent the shops. We do NOT go to the other side of the highway to Coles, there are NO decent upmarket food shops here,(we need fruit, vegetables, deli etc- the existing shops are tired and old and unloved). However, the applicatin to REDUCE retail is a terrible one, motivated purely by desire for profit by the developer - more apartments, more money. It will be an infrastructure disaster for the area. Please do not allow this to happen.

I DO support the development of the area. It is high time it happened - but NOT at the expense of this area's future. the residents here matter, not the pockets of the developer.

I am looking forward to a better local shopping experience if / when this area gets developed - however if it is not scrutinised very carefully and the decision makers simply look at the developer's interests, it will be a disaster for the short, medium and long term - it can't be 'undone' once it's approved.

Please think of the future.

thank you

I am totally opposed to the increase in the height of the building and to the increase in the number in number of units in the building as it will result in additional traffic congestion for tyhe area.
I am also totally opposed to the reduction in the number of parking places in the garage as it will result in the loss of available parking spots at street level .

See attached

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