15 Karina Close, Armidale, NSW 2350

With regard to this proposed development, it is noted that the Traffic Impact Assessment regards all access roads to the site as "below technical capacity" with an emphasis on access via The Avenue.

- However Stage 1, and possibly Stage 2, will be immediately serviced for home and road building purposes, and then local traffic, by the gravel surfaced Sutherland Avenue. Residents on this thoroughfare already suffer from dust inundation and noise due to local traffic which originates from at least six existing dwellings, some with multiple vehicles and including the Developer's, located on Spring Hill Lane and the east end of South Hill.

-Further, the 200 metre straight road section seems to encourage excess speed, past three driveways (11, 17 and 19), to and from the Old Gostwyck Road intersection.

- Development approval should only be given if the Developer and Council seal Sutherland Avenue AND install traffic calming devices to slow traffic.

Re THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ST PATRICK'S SITE ARMIDALE
Firstly I would like to comment on the lack of communication between the council and the property owners inTHE AVENUE to advise us of this proposal, as was the case with residents in KARINA CLOSE ,THE BOULEVARD, and ROSS STREET. Please note all of the mentioned streets would be heavily impacted by the increased traffic in the long term, but more importantly the impact of heavy vehicle traffic on the existing infrastructure.
I have only been informed of the proposed DA-160-2019 SUBDIVISION today 11th March by a very concerned NEIGHBOUR.
I do agree to the point of entry and construction access would be best from the SUTHERLAND AVENUE side of the planned Estate so as not to overload the existing AVENUE and adjoining streets with Heavy Vehicle Traffic.

Submission in opposition to extending Karina Close, DA-16-2019: reference 253527
I’d like to express my opposition to the plan to open Karina Close for traffic from the new subdivision off Springhill Road. I’m not in opposition to the development as a whole but feel that access to the development through Karina Close is unnecessary and will significantly impact the existing residences along Karina Close and The Avenue.
The Avenue is a quiet residential area, currently being used by not only local residents, but the broader community. Especially in the morning and afternoons there’s a fairly constant traffic of walkers, joggers, kids learning to ride their bikes, pregnant mums and new mums with strollers. This is because it’s a nice area with relatively little traffic. What traffic there is, tends to be slow being mostly local residents.
We frequently have Possums, Echidnas, Lizards, Kangaroos and large numbers of native birds visiting our yard. It’s a quiet, leafy, family oriented area.
If Karina Close is opened for the new development that will change. In the short term there will be a high flow of medium to heavy vehicles using The Avenue and in the longer term many of the new residents using The Avenue as a shortcut, as well as increased traffic for deliveries etc. This will mean a more dangerous environment as well as dust and noise pollution. My understanding is that The Avenue was never designed to serve as an arterial road and given the crests and bends would also be unsafe to repurpose it to that end. The access from Springhill Lane for the development also makes this change of access totally unnecessary.
I’ve heard it discussed that part of the justification for the Karina Close access is for emergency vehicles. The end of Karina Close could have an emergency vehicle access (if that is actually necessary), controlled by a bollard or a gate, without allowing residential through traffic, although I suspect the access has less to do with emergency access and more to do with getting a better price on lots in the subdivision.
I have two young children who currently enjoy full use of our yard. There is no front fence as is stipulated for any of The Avenue lots. I see trucks and through traffic along the Avenue as being a danger to them and the other road users, and would strongly appreciate it if you adopt a more common-sense solution than the current proposal.

I am writing in opposition to application DA-16-2019 for the Subdivision of 15 Karina & Part of 38 Sutherland Av.

I strongly disagree with the proposal in regard to Page 6 – Access & Traffic – “It surmised that the existing road network has the capacity to absorb the additional traffic generated by the proposed subdivision and as such will not have an adverse impact on existing residential development or road network capability.”

I live on 17 Sutherland Avenue and have two young children (3 year old and 1 year old). We already have a serious issue with the dangerous speed limit (100km/h) which has involved at least two close incidents with our children and cars since June last year. Dust caused by vehicles is also a potential health hazard on Sutherland Avenue, particularly with current speed limit. My son Alister rides his bike a lot on Sutherland Avenue and the traffic impact assessment (attached below) of the original application already predicts a 10 fold increase in traffic without recommending any infrastructure changes. Due to the road being unsealed, and no speed limit, noise pollution will also be an issue with a large increase of traffic.

On reviewing the proposal for the Karina development the main access was to be via Karina Cl. Is the traffic impact assessment still relevant or is Sutherland Av being considered as the main access route?

Common sense would dictate that the proposal will require Sutherland Avenue to be sealed and the speed limit reduced to 50 km/h. What options do I have to make this a major factor in the council’s assessment for the proposal?

While the development does potentially disrupt our peaceful corner of Armidale, which is why we chose 17 Sutherland as our first home, the least we can hope for is a safer road with less pollution to raise our children on. I am also curious as to why Springhill Lane is not being used for access.