All recent comments on applications from Armidale Regional Council, NSW

I own 4 Wendo Street and am very annoyed that I found out about this development application via a text message from my tenant. It appears little effort was taken to notify those most likely to object.

I believe the value of my property, and likelihood of being able to sell, if and when we choose will be significantly adversely effected by having a boarding house next door.

My tenant raised issues with me of likely noise, especially early morning and late at night, traffic noise and congestion with the additional on street parking and general change to the area, likely making it unsuitable for her as a retired female to be living. This is highly distressing for her and for us as the owner of the property she has rented for 13 years.

I do not understand why a quiet residential area is being considered for a multi tenancy boarding house. Surely if the boarding house is needed it should be placed in a high density residential area which already has flats, units and multi occupant dwellings.

Terrible planning and vision. Time again it was knocked back by council. Having been sold by council to a private company only to knock them back and lay idle for 11 years. But now, it’s all of a sudden getting the go ahead. Another John Sewell sweet heart deal

I'm shocked that Armidale Council would consider approving this application given that traffic from Link Rd has been prevented from exiting Link Rd on to the Highway because it was deemed by council to be dangerous. Residents from the new Foothills subdivision who raised concerns about closing this exit in the first place were not listened to and Council closed Link Rd to the Highway. Why then would the council then consider having a service station on the same corner which would increase traffic on the very corner that has been closed off? I also think that it will impact residents in the Netherton Park residential area. I don't think there is much economic benefit to the local community compared to the downsides of approving such a large development that close to a residential area.

We are concerned about this development for two reasons
1 The potential for increased neighbourhood crime and antisocial behaviour.
2 If traffic is now existing Link Road in both directions after the service station is built we fell that Link Road should not have been closed off at all.

I have grave concerns that this subdivision will have a major impact on traffic flow and capacity on Holmfield Drive. Holmfield Drive was not constructed to cope with the current traffic flow due to its width and travel path from the New England Highway to Link Road let alone adding additional traffic to transverse it’s course. The Foothills has not been a well planned Subdivision with no public open spaces or amenities created over the 5 years of its existence. Not such a great legacy for the Yeomans Family who are now wanting to create more local traffic via a small arterial road-one massive rabbit warren!

I have great concerns about the proposed commercial driveway being placed so close to my residence. No longer will I have the peace and quiet, nor the privacy that my home currently affords me; qualities that are necessary for me to sustain my employment as a shift-worker for people with disabilities.

Three of the four bedrooms in my home run along the side of the house nearest to the proposed development, the fourth on the other side of the house being a child’s bedroom. This means there will be vehicles going up and down right outside my bedroom window when I am trying to sleep. I am also very concerned about light pollution. I did not choose to live next to a thoroughfare.

Two of the owners have just been at my door to reassure me that the thoroughfare would only be used a few times a month and for short periods, but in reality there are no guarantees, and that can change.

I am very concerned for my mental and physical well-being should this proposal go ahead.
Sincerely, Karen Grace Runciman

We are concerned that this shed coupled with the shipping container in the backyard at this address will block the sunlight to the front and side of our property. It is hoped that drainage has been thoroughly researched as we've had problems before with water when 47 Glen Innes Rd(Fletcher St) renovated their property as we understand there are springs in this area. A major query is "What is the shed to be used for? " Is it to repair cars? With one business on same street, another one could add to the existing traffic congestion.

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.

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.

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.

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.

We are currently in discussion with Armidale Council regarding this development application, plus one other on Castledoyle Road, over the use of Fosters Road as the only access road from Armidale for heavy vehicles due to the load restrictions in place on the Shingle Hut Creek bridge on Castledoyle Road. Councils Rob Shaw has advised that the Shingle Hut Creek bridge is to be upgraded and I am waiting for a reply from him as to what the new upgraded limits of the bridge will be. Fosters Road, which is unsealed, has become a major hazard over the past 3 months due to the significant increase in heavy vehicles travelling at speed and the dust ingress to our house and water supply as they deliver materials to the construction site on a daily basis. We had requesting council consider sealing a section of Fosters Road but we are advised this is not on their agenda. If the upgrade to the Shingle Hut Creek is not adequate to carry heavy vehicles then we will be faced with the continuation of heavy vehicles having to detour via Fosters Road & Long Swamp Road.

Have casually perused this application. The intention referred to in the Overview (1.1) is to “titlely” subdivide the 2 existing units currently erected on the property (unit 1 with attached carport and unit 2 with attached garage).
Page 7: 3.3 mentions “3 units currently with a single lock up garage in front of the building to be maintained in their current form and allocated to each unit as per Appendix A”.
Page 9: Comment: proposes to subdivide the site into three (3) Strata units.
In the annexed email from Mr Warren Sellings...in the Subject - he mentions “units 2 & 3, 247 Brown Street”.

My comments - are these ‘typographical errors’ which should be amended before final approval?