All recent comments on applications from NSW Department of Planning Major Project Assessments, NSW

congratulations to every person destroying the natural bushland and slaughtering wildlife and in this area above and surrounding bushland being cleared, making 7 Mile Creek run suspended particles, shameful all of it!

Amanda A.
Limeburners Creek resident &
ICAG Inc. Secretary

a development application for this small item should not be required ,there are other more important issues that should get attention. such as the redevelopment and distruction of existing lodges in thredbo village . one is the black bear lodge . the proposed new building does not fit in the village and would change it to its detriment. in fact , contra the well known mountain village, as advertised widely for many years.

You’d think the next step if this is approved would be to add an extra lane to Central Coast high or at the very least expand this part of Mann st. No the opposite is more likely to happen. Bus lanes, Bike lanes, Gardens will steal away lanes meant for Cars. Traffic on Henry Parry drive, Central Coast hwy, Mann st is already unable to cope with the slightest traffic hiccup. Infrastructure e.g High speed train, Light rail is decades away. Will a road ever be built through Rumbalara National Park to Connect Gosford to Erina, The Entrance , etc. Not likely. Only the developers and Council land rate coffers , will benefit. Maybe we might get a Brand new Coles or Woolies.

You’d think the next step if this is approved would be to add an extra lane to Central Coast high or at the very least expand this part of Mann st. No the opposite is more likely to happen. Bus lanes, Bike lanes, Gardens will steal away lanes meant for Cars. Traffic on Henry Parry drive, Central Coast hwy, Mann st is already unable to cope with the slightest traffic hiccup. Infrastructure e.g High speed train, Light rail is decades away. Will a road ever be built through Rumbalara National Park to Connect Gosford to Erina, The Entrance , etc. Not likely. Only the developers and Council land rate coffers , will benefit. Maybe we might get a Brand new Coles or Woolies.

regarding comment by R Abrahams,
Gosford is and will be a major city and centre of Central Coast. these new buildings which are alot higher then current tallest are normal for this size city. 20-30storeys is the future of Gosford not lowrise. Lowrise is what it has been staggnated for years due to poor planning and ignorant councillors. Now the city is governed by state planning which supports new dynamic development which will push the city into the 21st century.
Please dont think tall buildings are potential ghettos. thats really backward thinking.
tall buildings create skylines and give a signature to a city. Tall buildings generate activity and interest. Look at Parramatta,it was stagnated for decades with lowrise and now many skyscrapers are being developed and its becoming a new vibrant city on its own.
Dont stop highrise as that will stop Gosford progressing inot the new dynamic city it is becomning. finally.

This building is an architectural disaster at the height of 26 floors or 80 metres and is not in character with the historical southern end of Gosford CBD. Supporters will no doubt be overjoyed by the proposed towers in Mann street of some 32 floors.

These types of a proposal are egotistical by nature, create vertical ghettos and destroy the overall aesthetics of the Gosford Basin.

Our planning on the Central Coast should embrace development but should be more horizontal by nature and on decent sized blocks spread across the LGA area and connected by rapid transport to hubs connected to mainstream transport nodes.

This wanton need for the high rise is spoiling the Sydney basin with masses of vertical ghettos connected with ugly but necessary infrastructure with associated high tolls.
These buildings are also proving to be structural failures causing owners significant dismay and grief. We will also need to increase the capacity of services, particularly fire fighting appliances and greater control over construction and materials selection than that which we have witnessed being built into existing high rise developments.

With NSW state Government changing legislation to meet the needs of greedy developers where will the high rise end? Or do we want to see high rise developments along our famous pristine beaches?

Planning associated with the Central Coast has been a basket case for many years and government legislative changes will eventually witness control of all future planning taken out of the hands of rate-payers and control given to other State established planning authorities such as the Greater Sydney Region Planning Commission.

I totally support this development and object the concerns about the architecture and height. This proposal is being designed by a reputable architecture practice in DKO Architecture and is a development that is much needed in the area. Gosford has been on the decline for decades and I'm sick of people opposing good design and actual decent sized development. All you have to do is take a drive around Gosford in the middle of the day and see that every second block is vacant and derelict. Businesses are constantly going out of business and shop fronts just sit empty. Bonython Tower and The Bon pavilion show what good design can do to the main street of Gosford. The Bon feels so out of place at the moment because you walk off the street full of empty shop fronts and walk into a quality bar and restaurant that seems to always be busy. There is the demand for good quality venues in Gosford and hopefully this development can encourage others to open. There are more car park structures in Gosford than decent restaurants to get dinner. These types of high quality design will encourage businesses to invest in Gosford and will help activate the park and waterfront.
This development will be the first of many towers that hopefully get built in the near future, Gosford Alive, Archibald, Gosford Library, the new Gosford hotel just to name a few. With all the development applications currently in Council around the area and the ones already approved, I have high hopes for Gosford finally becoming the regional city it has had the potential to be for years. I'm a young architect who lives in Springfield and I have all my fingers and toes crossed that this development is approved and Gosford can be brought back to life.

This is a welcome new project that has taken St Hilliers at least 5 years to get here with a lot of silly stalling and resistance - now Gosford might grow up.

The site is in a great spot, the building looks good, finally the ugly council building will be over-shadowed. The mix of 136 units is great, mainly two's for couples and young families. The shared retail area, over 600 sqm is great news, good food, coffee, wine etc.

Also great will be the activation of this area which the old Gosford Council and our recent Central Coast Council have held back, selfishly, for so many years. Central Coast Council does not have a Strategic Planning activity/department, what a shame, so developments like this have been stalled by planners used to signing of new garages and extensions. Luckily St. Hilliers have filed all the required studies and done all the Council's work for it - well done.

I hope lots of progressive residents and ratepayers read and comment positively on this development - so that we can finally start to grow up.

When buildings like this are built in Gosford it seldom ever creates jobs for locals in the construction Industry. What it does do it put more utes on the M1 from Sydney to the Coast.

Is it not strange that high rises are always approved far from the water front and slowly other high rises are built in front of these until right on the water front?

I think it's now impossible to put the genie back in the bottle as the (old) council totally missed its calling and the new temporary one is looking for investment to grow and pay off debt. For Gosford to survive as a township is must grow as proven by its decline over the past decades. infrastructure will be the real key issue. The question "Can Gosford’s infrastructure support these buildings with the increase in population? " Population as in residence and workers. Car parking, transport fluidity and public transport are three main concerns. All one has to do is drive a car onto race course road to Mann street during ‘peek hour’ to see that there’s going to be huge issues in the future if nothing is done, let alone the bottle neck that is East Gosford to name just one.

regarding proposed 26-30 mann st
This is great news for Gosford, at 25 storeys and 80m is equal in height to existing buildings high up on Henry parry drive. this project will create many jobs and give residence great views and it’s retail podium will activate the area . This is all part of the big picture and future Gosford is looking bright

I would like to support Annette's very appropriate and practical objection. A building of that height should not be built so close to the water front. There should be a sensible height restriction on all buildings of 4 to 5 stories in Gosford if we want to save its natural beauty. Gosford's hills are a very attractive and a pleasant draw card. I have recently moved to Gosford from Sydney to escape such disastrous architecture so I certainly do not want Sydney reproduced in Gosford with its traffic jams, pollution, queueing every where, with no real town planning that actually could enhance the town's already amazing natural assets. Obscuring water and bush land views that now exist will lower the values of many properties which is actually theft.. No one wants to look into a high rise block. Surely the natural beauty of Gosford is worth preserving and the not lining of the pockets of developers and the NSW state government?

As a resident of Gosford I would like to very strongly object to the height of this building in 26-30 Manns Street Gosford.

There are many, many residents who will be impacted by a building of this massive height size. It is overkill for the main street of Gosford.

Building heights should be tiered smaller to a certain height back from the waterfront to allow those of us who live at the back of Gosford eg John Whiteway Drive, not have such a huge object thrust up in front of us blocking our views beyond and making Mann Street look ridiculous.

The Bonython Building is too tall for our main street and stands out like a sore thumb however it is in the middle of the main street where other businesses are and it is only 14 levels. Imagine how unsightly a 26 level building will look on Gosford's main street at this location. It is not like it is in the middle of town. It will be where residential homes and apartments already exist. The beginning of suburbia not businesses.

It is heart breaking to think any building of this size would even be considered so near to our biggest assets our new waterpark and views to our waterways.

It will be like plonking a huge eyesore on a plot of land and hope it blends in with it's surroundings. It will not.

Very, very bad planning and unfair to residents who have invested in buying their homes in Gosford to keep the city alive.

It will be very sad if this building comes to fruition at this height. Half the height would be palatable but only just.

Please, please have a heart and listen to the residents about this project.

Gosford is not the Gold Coast or Sydney and does not need mega storey buildings at this end of the of the city.

Kind regards Annette Botfield

1 This proposal is in a high activity pedestrian area with multiple road intersections and thus poses serious safety issues.
2 It is in the proximity of hundreds of high rise residential apartments whose amenity would be significantly impacted.

I also disagree with this proposal

As if we need more visual pollution in this area! Planning departments should be focused on actions and strategies that declutter and beautify these busy corridors. And who reaps the benefits of the advertising dollars and how is it applied?

I oppose this proposal on the grounds of safety. It is a busy intersection for vehicles and pedestrians. It is also a "high workload" intersection for all users requiring maximum concentration for accident avaoidance. The presence of unnecessary and unrelated messaging within the intersection precinct would distract drivers and pedestrians and put lives and property at risk.

Hi Guys
Would appreciate if you could also object to the two 15.5m x 3.2m signs similar to the ones proposed at Albert Street that are proposed at Help Street re: DA 10622 by the railways.

This has a closing date of 15/2/2021.
Ron
Building Manager Regency

As one of the nearby residents who would be impacted by this type of advertising, I strongly object to being forced to endure the never ending bombardment of electronic emissions even whilst I sleep. The location of these atrocious billboards will detract from the peace and tranquility that the nearby park offers to residents and visitors. People go there to practise TaiChi, meditation, yoga and lots of other outdoor activities with small children. It is totally inappropriate in a green space area. The mental health and well being of the community must be taken into consideration.There has to be some respite from this and surely there are other more appropriate commercial sites that are available for this type of use.

I oppose this proposal too. There is too much happening with the traffic, cyclists & pedestrians. Many times I have seen pedestrians ignoring the walking lights and crossing the road, expecting cars will stop for them. Drivers need to concentrate, so it is important that they do not have distractions such as digital signage.

I strongly oppose this proposal, due to potential danger to pedestrian crossing the street. The proposed signage is facing a bendy intersection which includes three pedestrian crossings. The rapidly turning Help Street results in limited visibility of the approaching cars from the east side. Pedestrians crossing the road from Monkey Bar towards north-west already have a very limited visibility on cars approaching from the right. People leaving the bar may be under influence of alcohol. This is a busy intersection connecting residential complex of high risers (Pacific Place Chatswood ) with supermarkets and bars.

On top of that, the segment of Help Street, between the proposed signs is a place where the bicycle lane joins the footpath. It's a sensitive place, where all pedestrians, cyclists and drivers have to be extra careful.

The signage will result in distraction in a sensitive spot with already limited visibility.

SUBJECT; DIGITAL SIGNAGE – ALBERT AVENUE, CHATSWOOD – RAILWAY OVERPASS

Having reviewed the abovementioned application, I wish to lodge my objection to the installation of the signage with the utmost disgust, on the following grounds.
• As an Australian, where since a small child I was always taught that our forefathers fought and died for our Country in war to ensure that as Australians we were free. As such the one most reverent day of the year ANZAC Day was borne. A day held with high reverence, meaning, remembering them you gave their life to give everyone reading this objection a better life and Country. One that I am proud to be, and now this day can be destroyed in Chatswood because of a “digital signage” that cannot be approved under any circumstances.
• Chatswood’s Garden of Remembrance (listed under local heritage) is immediately adjacent to this railway overpass. This garden serves the Community not just as a place for two (2) special days a year, namely ANZAC DAY & REMEMBRANCE Day but for enjoyment and contemplation and also for the school children to learn about the meaning of the garden and the plagues therein.
• ANZAC DAWN SERVICE, approving DIGITAL SIGNAGE would totally take away the ambiance and serious impact the solemnity of this service – and if one looks at the words ‘AND IN THE MORNING WE WILL REMEMBER THEM” – because a signage would illuminating and destroying this day.
• RESIDENTIAL IMPACT – this signage would impact on all residents residing in the units/house around have its NEON LIGHTING DISLAYED day and night all year round. What is more important allowing every person the right to quiet peace and enjoyment and be allowed to sleep or a signage on a bridge?
• DANGER TO DRIVERS AND TRAFFIC – Driver’s would be distracted by the ever changing signage not just those traversing Albert Avenue, but it would also be seen from the Pacific Highway. So taking into account the busy pedestrian crossing directly below and in front of this overpass, lives are put at risk and therefore comprises a greater SAFETY HAZARD.
Therefore, I pose these questions to you;

• IS NOT ANZAC DAY AND REMEBERANCE DAY TO BE OBSERVED IN SILENCE AND REVERANCE
• YOU MUST AND IT IS YOUR DUTY TO DENY THIS APPLICATION AS IT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH SEPP 64 AND ROAD SAFETY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA TABLE 4 OF SEPP 64 & SECTION 3 OF SEPP 64.
• WILL THE PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT MEMBERS ACCEPT LIABILITY IF A CHILD/PERSON IS KILLED AT THE CROSSING BY A DRIVER OF A VEHICLE THAT HAS BEEN DISTRACTED BECAUSE OF THIS SIGN.
• WILL THE PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT MEMBERS ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR THE CAR ACCIDENTS DUE TO DISTRACTION OF THE DRIVER’S “RUBBER NECKING”
• WHAT PURPOSE OR SIGNIFIGANCE DOES A DIGITAL SIGN OVER A RAIL CORRIDOR HAVE?
• DOES THE SIGNIFIGANCE OF THE SIGN OVERRIDE OUR HERITAGE AND BELIEFS THAT AS AUSTRALIANS WE ARE HERE BECAUSE OF OUR ANZAC’s.

Therefore, I ask that you do no approve this DA on the above grounds.

I wish to respond to the Chatswood RSL submission.
1 The Eastern signage will impact the Garden of Remembrance as digital signs are illuminated 24 hours a day, resulting in significant light spillage to the Garden. Additionally the increase in urban commercial clutter resulting from such large illuminated and constantly changing signage, where none presently exists, will have a detrimental impact on the Garden precinct.
2 Both western and eastern signs have serious safety implications which are not addressed at all in the RSL submission.
3 The suggestion of turning off the signs on ANZAC Day Dawn Service & the Remembrance Day Service and the second suggestion of putting relevant messages on them are self-contradictory. The Garden is intended for quiet contemplation and large illuminated signage is incompatible in an area so proximate to it as these signs will be.

Chatswood RSL sub Branch and Club submit the following.
It appears the lit signage on the Eastern side of the overbridge will have little visual impact upon the Garden of Remembrance.
This is because from the Garden there are two substantial trees blocking the view to the proposed sign.
The visual impact upon memorial and commemorate services consequently would, it seems, be minimal.
As a distraction from the concept that the Garden is a place of quite retreat and reflection, greater distraction is experienced on a regular basis
by the arrival and departure of trains at Chatswood Station.
Notwithstanding the above we believe that consideration should be given to either
• turning off the sign/s during commemorative day services but not exclusive to, the ANZAC Day Dawn Service & the Remembrance Day Service
• and, or the signs be used to acknowledge and remember those who served, and the fallen, on those occasions by showing relevant words for the majority of the day such as “Lest we Forget or We will remember them”.
G J Owen JP
President. Chatswood RSL Club

I strongly object to this application because it makes the area more dangerous and increases the cognitive load on the drivers in the area.

There are already 3 sets of traffic lights within a 200 metre stretch of road and several T intersections from different sides and a large car park entrance. As well as normal roads/intersections that location has an additional two small (and somewhat unexpected) access roads immediately adjacent to the overpass on both the East and West sides.

The possibility of accidents is particularly high as there are multiple modes of traffic including vehicles, bikes, and pedestrians PLUS delivery trucks using the access roads. The area also does not have clear line of sight along that stretch due to the overpass itself - as a driver regularly in the area I know the other side of the overpass is effectively a blind spot until I approach it and I go under the bridge.
It is obvious that advertising and revenue by owning authorities are indeed an element of our modern world however this particular location is both dangerous and poorly suited for a digital billboard. Even a static billboard would not be ideal but would be better.

I disagree with they opinion of Bruce Bradshaw I and strongly AGREE with David Grover.