Fletcher Street has become a nightmare over the past 12 months since to homes in the new estate have been build. One road in One road out. The developer didn't contribute to road works, in fact he fought the council and won. 120 extra cars in and out Monday to Friday with a road full of pot holes and falling apart and trying to negotiate to get out of Fletcher Street to Wine Country Drive is an accident waiting to happen. There has been no traffic and flood mitigation put in place for the extra vehicles who will be using the only road for all residents in the area. This is another council slush fund project. No transparency, No public consultation, and why, we all know why. We are rates payers to Cessnock Council so please acknowledge our contributions to your slush fund and hear our concerns.
All recent comments on applications from Cessnock City Council, NSW
I would like to add my comments to other residents in the area to the proposed child care facility situated at 14A Fletcher Street Nulkaba. 1 Note the location is actually in Valley View Place which is a no through road with no kerb or guttering and bad drainage.2As you would be well aware the traffic turning left or right from Fletcher street into Wine Country Drive is hopeless at peak hours imagine how much wourse it will become with 120 plus cars entering the mix as well as staff vehicles and service vehicles for the facility.3 This is an area designated R5 which prohibits such development in our rural setting.4 I along with most effected residents were not notified by letter and why the short period to comment 2 weeks sounds like you wanted to rush this application through I wonder why? I note other residents have voiced their displeasure as well for similar and additional reasons
I’m objecting this development as this is a rural / residential area and not a place for a large childcare centre. The roads here are already busy and poor quality this will see 120 cars extra per day travelling through and in an area with no road shoulder or foot paths and lots of young residents use this area for walking bike riding etc so it’ll become unsure to do so
Hi Guys,
I am in favor of the application. There is a shortage of residential housing in the Cessnock LGA
Regards Paul Geraeds
Why would you knock down perfectly good house when we have 3 empty houses already destroyed in rawson street that was to be knocked down for a CHILDCARE FACILITY and there is also an empty block across the road? This should not occur during a housing crisis! You all need your head checked.
Although I cannot read the terms but am familiar with this as the developer and owner of 47 Deakin Street attempted this easement on me.
My objection is that:
1. It is not a designated flood zone.
2. 47 Deakin Street has no ownership to 45 Deakin Street but is attempting to illegal go through 45 Deakin Street to connect with our storm water pit. Problem is our storm water pit is not changing in volume. Therefore when the development goes ahead on 47 Deakin Street the water run off will affect the building construction of 31 Lonsdale Place due to water run off overflowing from the pit.
3. The true nature of why this is easement has not been disclosed. Therefore, it is illegal to approve the easement.
Drainage around them two blocks ? , is sewage be installed to end off street and kerb and guttering to white street as part off this application
In relation to the above application for the subdivision.
36 and 38 Harper Street ,
I am looking for further clarification as to the accessibility / Legal Access road of these proposed Subdivision blocks and the size of the blocks. A copy of this overall Plan, or where i can view these please. What time frame is involved and how would this affect my place in relation to dust and noise and what controls would be in place.
Regards
Brian
Great news about new toilets! What about Kerb and guttering for Queen St Branxton! The school now needs both entrances in tip top shape now with 17 classes!
To whom it may concern.
It is with great concern that I have recently been made aware of the application for removal of existing Dam at 81 Davis Street Millfield 2325 Application Number 10/2022/972/1. I must strongly object.
As a resident in Davis Street, I /we are very well aware that the area concerned. This is a dam which belongs in a natural water course. This dam has water feeding from all areas in Millfield including the Rose Hill Estate into it. I firmly object to this being closed or removed without at the minimum an Engineer report AND an Environmental impact study. As I and others in the street are concerned for ongoing potential of flooding of properties or homes. As in recent times ,the localized flooding and water levels in the street has risen considerably.
With the adjacent property to 81 Davis street, on the right already subject to considerable water in the property.
We are under the belief that the applicate is moving forward with this application to aid in greater access to his property ,so as to establish a Manufacturing Business in the rear of the property, to which we are NOT zoned.
To Whom it may concern,
I am all in favor of longer trading hours especially now the daylight hours are getting longer. We have accommodation nearby & guests arriving in the late afternoon cannot do a wine tasting or purchase a wine nearby as the cellar doors are all closed. Most guests come from Sydney. So , after driving for 2 hours or more they have to drive past the closed cellar doors into Cessnock and buy at a bottle shop. This is probably not a memorable Hunter experience.
This is not a new concept. Already in our area restaurants, bars, breweries and golf clubs can sell alcohol and stay open late but they don`t offer wine tasting or sales.
Also, I cannot imagine a few cars entering the cellar door will impact the traffic flow on Lovedale Rd or produce any noise problems for neighboring properties.
To whom it may concern,
We are in favor of this development.
There are several wineries, cafes, restaurants and accommodation premises in this part of Lovedale . A function facility would complement these and help fill rooms in the local accommodation businesses.
The block of land is substantial so I assume there will be a reasonable clearance from the boundaries. I also assume it will be mostly weddings as there is already some wedding infrastructure on the site so a function facility nearby makes sense. Weddings don`t usually run much past 10 pm so there should be minimal late night noise.
It would also create jobs for cleaners, gardeners, cooking staff, wait staff and bar staff,
hopefully from the Cessnock area and surrounds which has high unemployment.
My property is on the eastern side of black creek near proposed development, I am concerned with the backfill works of the site will impact my block with more extreme flood conditions. I purchased my property for the rural aspect and this development will ruin that and believe it’s not suited to the area .
Carryn and David Harrower
We live off FLETCHER st. in PERRIS st. the local government keeps approving all these new builds and subdivisions with no upgrading of any off the roads. There are 85 homes going into the new estate in Valleyveiw close.. Fletcher st is the only way in and out off Mckensey st , Valley veiw cl. and Perris st. and there around 70 homes at present. Getting on to Wine Country Dr. at the moment is very dangerous, if they put the storage facility and cafe in I believe there is going to be a terrible accident. I believe the cafe is going to be around a 100 seats. It will also detract from our beautiful suburb and effect our home prices. Also that land on Winecountry Dr. is a natural water cause and if this is interfered with it may cause flooding in the area. Now word around the area is the subdivision off 3 large properties at the end of Fletcher St. The traffic in and out out of Fletcher st. is going to be dangerous.
My property is on the eastern side of black creek near proposed development, I am concerned with the backfill works of the site will impact my block with more extreme flood conditions. I purchased my property for the rural aspect and this development will ruin that and believe it’s not suited to the area .
I feel that this application is not in line with the businesses that currently exists in rural Lovedale. We have wineries, cafes & restaurants. A drive thru take away business is more suited to a main street business area, not in the middle of a rural winery area.
Traffic is another concern. The road is definitely not wide enough to allow for turning space & visually the trees block the corner. I feel it would be an accident waiting to happen.
Is this still going ahead? Residents are concerned about mine subsidise act. I also noticed the property does not currently have a mine subsidence certificate for build. Is the site also cleared of land contamination ie. Old house, asbestos, lead and other hazardous substance associated with demolition and digging.
Is this still going ahead? Residents are concerned about mine subsidise act. I also noticed the property does not currently have a mine subsidence certificate for build. Is the site also cleared of land contamination ie. Old house, asbestos, lead and other hazardous substance associated with demolition and digging.
Dear Council,
We were very surprised to receive an alert for this development application as this wedding function centre is already constructed and has been operating for 2 years or so. It is concerning that development is happening, and in particular wedding function businesses are being operated, without the appropriate development approvals. This is not the only example.
In reviewing the material on the DA tracker, the acoustic report attached is for another development. Would you kindly attach the correct documentation.
The acoustic report is of interest to us as our property, with 2 residences, is in proximity to this development. It is interesting that the Statement of Environmental Effects references surrounding ‘tourism’ developments, but fails to mention the numerous surrounding rural residences and properties used for grazing livestock. I trust the acoustic report considers the impact on local rural residences, farm animals and wildlife. Noise from functions, particularly at night, travels and causes significant disturbance. These are not noises consistent with a rural environment.
In addition, surrounding ‘tourism’ businesses noted such as wineries do not operate for the hours proposed by wedding businesses, and this application in particular. We would respectfully request that Council exercise caution in approving function centres, and take heed of the lessons learnt by Byron Shire Council. Any approvals should impose strict compliance obligations and limitations on operations, particularly in relation to days, times, noise and lighting to ensure the maintenance of rural resident amenity.
It is paramount that a proper assessment be made as to whether the proposed use as a function centre is an appropriate development, even when the development has already been undertaken without approval. In a situation where the primary rural use of land, whether for viticulture or grazing, and rural resident amenity are being compromised, such developments should be assessed as inappropriate.
Thank you for considering our submission.
We refer to Application No: 8/2020/209991
Property Lot 1622 Broke Road Pokolbin NSW 2320
Please find following details regarding omissions, errors and requirements pertaining to the above mentioned integrated development proposal.
Reference is given to “Statement of Environmental Effects” produced by WPP Planning and Property December 2020.
Section 2.1 The site and context. “The site is located in a rural setting… to the east, much of the land has been cleared, however to the west, as the land rises towards the Brokenback Ranges and Pokolbin State Forest, the land is heavily vegetated and unimproved”. This information is incorrect in terms of direction and omits our residence which adjoins 1622 Broke Road, and the context contained within.
WPP Planning and Property are incorrect, and should have stated that to the west of 1622 Broke Road Pokolbin is our adjoining residence of 1620 Broke Road Pokolbin. Therefore the proposed development of the spa with its opening (non- enclosed part of the structure) faces directly to our property and the noise generated by these guests will impact our lives and also the wellbeing of our livestock. This noise pollution is already currently experienced by us when guests are on the decks of their accommodation and on the front lawns near the dam.
All other directions of South, East and North are as a result also inaccurate as per WPP Planning and Property.
Section 2.2 Site Characteristics. “Improvements to the site include”:
• Boundary fencing? There is no construction of a boundary fence on the western side which adjoins our property and the tourist accommodation located on 1622 Broke Road Pokolbin. The owner has not undertaken this task as part of “improvements” to his property.
The only boundary fence currently under construction between the two adjoining properties is a solid hard wood fence which we are building on our property in accordance with council regulations. The location of construction occurred as a result of a qualified surveyor attending our property. Between our property boundary of 1620 Broke Road Pokolbin, and 1622 Broke Road Pokolbin, there exists 20 metres of land which is not owned by either party. It would be evident by a site visit by WPP Planning and Property, the owner of 1622 Broke Road Pokolbin has not erected a boundary fence to the west which would ensure that his guests do not trespass on our property.
Historically when we have complained regarding the constant trespassing of his guests on our property to the owner, the site manager etc., have done absolutely nothing to prevent trespassing from occurring. (Should you require documentary evidence of these occurrences please let me know and I will email them to you).
I mention the lack of a boundary fence on 1622 Broke Road for two reasons. Firstly, the omission of a boundary fence results in accommodation guests constantly trespassing on our property. When this issue has been raised in the past with the tourist accommodation owner and his staff, there eventuated a total lack of dealing with the issue. This current situation significantly impacts our lives and our livestock’s lives as a result of trespassing on our property and which has also led to very dangerous situations with our horses. Tourist accommodation guests climb through our existing post and rail fencing to pat and feed our horses without our permission. At this point, I do not need to state the serious and dangerous potential accidents which could occur from such activities.
Secondly, historically due to the tourist accommodation owner’s total inaction pertaining to his guests trespassing, any future noise and visual issues generated by his guests as a result of the construction of spas, will also lead to a total lack of action by the owner, as a result of the proposed spa construction.
Please note the hard wood solid fence we are building on our property boundary is our attempt to ensure that our livestock and us are not affected by the tourist accommodation activities. Unfortunately however, the fence cannot be built high enough, and nor does it create a sound proof barrier from guest’s noisy activities (noise pollution) on the adjoining property which in the past has stressed our horses and caused them to run the fence line. This behaviour effects their long term wellbeing, can cause accidents such as running through fences and causing catastrophic injuries. This current situation has been discussed with various attending vets to our property.
Figure 2 Aerial Overview topographical survey is visually inaccurate as submitted by WPP Planning and Property. Unfortunately all maps as held by various government agencies are inaccurate. This has been proven by the physical attendance of surveyors on both our properties.
Section 3 As per Figure 4 “Extent of Works, Decks” and Figure 5
Rendered image, we note that the front view, which is not enclosed faces the west, i.e. in our direction. Due to the topography of our properties, guests which are outside on the deck areas, and the front lawn are heard by us and our livestock, and the noise level is unacceptable.
In addition we live in a zoned RU4, and we have direct visual site of the proposed location of the development of the spa’s. We do not need to be subjected to tourist accommodation guests in various states of undress as a result of them using the spa facilities.
Section 4.1.1.2 Section 4.15 Evaluation Table 1
b) the likely impacts of that development including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments………. Please refer to our earlier mentioned concerns in Section 3 above regarding noise pollution, and the already existing noise that both our livestock and us to which we are subjected.
Section 4.2.2.1 Land use zone and zone objectives which states, “to minimise conflict between land uses within this use and land uses within adjoining zones”. There is conflict between land uses with adjoining properties. As previously discussed the tourist accommodation business which adjoins our property, offers no consideration in terms of guests trespassing on our property (illegal trespassing) and noise pollution as generated by its operation. This situation seriously effects not only our lifestyle but also the physical well-being of our live stock in causing them to run the fence line and stressing them. As a result this situation directly contravenes the extract stated in this section.
Section 4.3.1 Part D Purpose Built Rural Tourist Accommodation. Point 4.5.1. Please see section 4.2.2.1 for comments which also relate to this section.
Section 4.5 Suitability of Site “the likely impacts of the proposal on the surrounding environment will be minimal and inconsequential”. We dispute this comment as clearly explained in earlier sections of this correspondence submitted to you regarding noise pollution, visual effects, effects on our lifestyle and also the wellbeing of our livestock.
Section 4.6 The Public Interest
“therefore the benefits of approving an addition to an existing dwelling outweigh any disadvantage and, as such, the proposed development will have an overall public benefit and therefore approval is thought to be in the public interest”. Quite frankly there is no “public interest” pertaining to the proposed development, it’s called generating a profit for the tourist accommodation owner who takes no responsibility for the activities and behaviour of his guests when they cause issues for neighbours. As a result we are meant to just suffer in silence and just deal with it, regardless of what effects his operational activities have on the well- being of our livestock and also our lifestyle. Both 1620 and 1622 Broke Road Pokolbin are zoned RU4 Primary Production Small Lots, where land use is subjected to “intensive plant agriculture (viticulture), extensive agriculture and tourist and visitor accommodation. Our property is using the land as part of “agricultural activities” and as such our operations which include the existence of livestock should not be affected by adjoining property activities. Tourist/accommodation activities should not be of greater importance than agricultural activities. Agricultural activities have historically enabled the Pokolbin region to exist and further develop to the current day.
We would like to draw your attention to the following document
“Cessnock Development Control Plan, Part E Specific Areas E.3: Vineyards District”
Specifically Section 3.10 “an assessment should be made of any impact the proposed development will have on surrounding land uses. Consideration of surrounding viticultural and agricultural activities is vital so that the operators are not forced to modify their practices”…… What to do…. Identify potential impacts relating to noise” When there is noise from the neighbouring tourist accommodation which stresses our horses we are forced to try and contain them in a distant part of the paddock (with limited success, as there is no contained fencing within the two large paddocks on our property) and try and calm them down. Evidently this course of action is only possible when we are on site, and not at our respective workplaces. The neighbouring activities therefore do force us to modify our practices in direct contravention of the above mentioned extract.
In addition in the above mentioned document in Section 3.2.1 states “requirements in preparing the application for development, consider the existence and location of surrounding land uses including viticulture and agricultural activities, and site development in a position which will not result in the potential for land use conflict between neighbouring land uses. Note the onus is on the encroaching development to provide the required buffer on the subject land”. The development application has not complied with this statement due to total omission of the existence of our property to the west of the proposed development, and as a result no consideration has been made to our land use. In addition as previously mentioned there are issues pertaining to the visual impact of the development and also the wellbeing of our livestock as a result of noise pollution.
As a result of the above mentioned points, please see following:
Requirements for the construction of the Spa area on 1622 Broke Road Pokolbin 2320
• The spas and adjoining deck areas be fully and permanently enclosed.
• The spas and adjoining deck areas be sound proofed to eliminate noise which travels across to our paddocks and house.
• The spas have enclosed materials which ensures that there is no visibility from the outside.
Thank you for your consideration in the above mentioned
Dear Cessnock City Council,
We are unable to access any application documentation on the DA Tracker to ascertain whether this application applies to all Lovedale Long Lunch (LLL) event sites. Notwithstanding. we wanted to raise an issue regarding the LLL Traffic Management Plans (TMP)
The TMP for the Tatler event site, on which the Consent for this Temporary Event is based, was misleading by omission, as it failed to identify neighbouring resident access needs and particularly that a registered easement passes through the event site providing a right of way to 2 landlocked properties, accommodating 4 residences. These residents, including ourselves, have a legal right to full and free access to their properties via this right of way. Residents are being unreasonably impeded from entering their properties, including being redirected into the event public carpark (capacity 800 vehicles) with part of the right of way physically blocked, resulting in an entry to our property being restricted. Residents are forced to manoeuvre their vehicles around event patrons (capacity 5000) who are accessing the right of way on foot between the car park and event space.
The turn off on Lovedale Road is also impeded by event traffic which adversely affects 2 other residential properties in addition to the 2 landlocked properties - so 4 residential properties (6 residences) in total are adversely affected by the Tatler TMP.
There is absolutely no provision for resident access in the Tatler TMP or the Temporary Event Consent, including access for resident emergency needs or services. This is a serious omission. Furthermore, as resident access needs have not be identified or addressed, these issues have not been brought to the attention of the Community in the Consent consultation process and ongoing assessment of the Consent.
Under Cessnock LEP Clause 2.8, as considered in the landmark case, Marshall Rural Pty Limited v Hawkesbury City Council [2015] NSWLEC 197, a Temporary Event cannot cause ANY adverse impact on any adjoining land or the amenity of the neighbourhood.
The impact of the Tatler TMP clearly has an adverse impact on adjoining land and wider neighbouring land. We also trust that members of the Community would consider it unreasonable for local residents to be unable to freely access their homes.
We will be making a more detailed submission to the Council Traffic Management Committee.
Thank you
Just out of interest do they have to have a turning lane in and out of wine country drive?
Our concern about this application is that their existing non approved dwelling is situated on a water causeway on their 4 titles. The existing bathroom plumbed into their existing (non approved) septic tank and transpiration pit is within 40mtres of a water causeway. Is their transpiration pit on the same title as their bathroom? And how far away from our boundary and water causeway is it? Our concern is that their septic tank will be polluting downstream water catchment areas.
This address is Cessnock Council , where is the building actually located??