Introduction & Submission Guidelines
YOUR SUBMISSION/S ARE VERY IMPORTANT!
Have all your family members write one and share with your friends. Utilise the pro forma if you would like, we highly recommend that you personalise it and add your passion and concerns to your letter. Select the points that are important to you. Put in your own words and edit our dot points to reflect why you are objecting. Simplify the layout if you prefer.
To assist, we have separately attached a list of items of concern put together by professionals at Hornsby Council Shire, in an extract of their submission to Central Coast Council.
All documents and reports, and the submission form and details can be found here:
https://www.yourvoiceourcoast.com/pipp
Submissions should be addressed to
Chief Executive Officer, Mr David Farmer by 5pm 20 December 2021 via:
· the online submission form (preferred)
· email: ask@centralcoast.nsw.gov.au
· post: PO Box 20, Wyong NSW 2259
Make sure you get your submission in BEFORE December 20th 2021
CC your submissions to:
| Matt Kean: NSW Member for Hornsby & NSW Treasurer: | hornsby@parliament.nsw.gov.au |
| Liesel Tesch: NSW Member for Gosford: | gosford@parliament.nsw.gov.au |
| Rob Stokes: NSW Minister for Planning & Public Spaces: | pittwater@parliament.nsw.gov.au |
| Julian Leeser: Federal Member for Berowra | julian.leeser.mp@aph.gov.au |
| Lucy Wicks: Federal member for Robertson (Central Coast): | lucy.wicks.mp@aph.gov.au |
| Mayor Ruddock | PRuddock@hornsby.nsw.gov.au |
| Hornsby Shire Councillors: | councillors@hornsby.nsw.gov.au |
| Adam Crouch | terrigal@parliament.nsw.gov.au |
Sample Letter Form – Download
Dear Chief Executive Officer, Mr David Farmer
Central Coast Council
I wish to comment and object to the current Planning Proposal for the Peat Island. As a resident of Brooklyn, I am deeply concerned that the impacts upon Brooklyn and the Hornsby Shire have not been assessed and adequately taken into account. The potential for the zoning changes could allow for a suburb even bigger than Brooklyn to be situated on iconic Heritage listed land but depending almost entirely on services provided in Brooklyn funded by the Hornsby Council Shire.
My objections are listed below under the headings:
· Impacts on Brooklyn and Hornsby Shire
· Planning and Development Issues
Impacts on Brooklyn and Hornsby Shire
The Brooklyn Community and Hornsby Shire Council have been advocating for more than a decade to be included within the consultation and the project scope. Key issues affecting Brooklyn are:
1. Impact on Traffic
Based on the statements in the reports, and estimates of demand on Brooklyn services and facilities, there will be considerable additional traffic demands on Brooklyn roads, including:
· Commuters in private cars travelling from the Site to and from Hawkesbury River Railway Station;
· Persons travelling from the Site to and from Brooklyn for retail and a range of services as well as for work at the businesses and tourist operations in Brooklyn.
· Parents travelling from the Site to and from Brooklyn Public School to drop off and collect children.
· Commuters in buses travelling from the Site to and from Hawkesbury River Railway Station.
· School children travelling in buses from the Site to and from Brooklyn Public School.
· Tourists travelling in cars and buses and on motor cycles and bicycles to both the Site and Brooklyn on the one day.
· Cyclists travelling from the Site to and from Hawkesbury River Railway Station and for retail and services.
Brooklyn roads, particularly Brooklyn Road itself, and Dangar Road, are overloaded and dangerous in current circumstances, and Brooklyn’s landforms prevent widening or improving access. Trucks, from State Rail and for other reasons, and cars and boat trailers accessing Parsley Bay, make resident access to Brooklyn Road often dangerous. Weekend traffic around the Brooklyn CBD is always outstripping safe availability.
The addition of considerable traffic from the proposed Peat Island development will exacerbate an already overloaded traffic system.
2. Demands on Parking
Each of these additional traffic demands will result in additional demands on Brooklyn parking facilities, which already exceed capacity, and have been the subject of numerous studies since the early 1990’s. Contention between on-shore and off-shore parking demands, and supply of visitor parking, are currently being analysed and assessed by Hornsby Council and the community, to try to identify potential long term solutions.
Parking facilities in Brooklyn for commuters and service users from the Peat Island development must be provided and funded by the NSW Government and the development proponents before construction begins.
3. Impact on Sewerage
The Brooklyn Sewerage Treatment Plant (STP) currently services Brooklyn, Dangar Island, Mooney Mooney and Cheero Point. It is owned / operated by Sydney Water Corp (SWC) and we understand it has ample capacity to meet future projected growth until 2045 of the existing settlements.
· The proposed Peat Island development will use up much of this excess capacity. Developers should be required to ensure STP upgrades are fully paid for at SWC rates, not Gosford rates.
· The proposal does not examine stormwater or sewerage effluent re-use in the development. NSW Metro Water Strategy requires integrated and sustainable solutions
· Water modelling is needed to confirm impact of “doubling” the discharge to the river and assurances that oyster farming and existing fishing activities will not be impacted.
· The water cycle report ignores importance of Rainwater harvesting; stormwater harvesting and water recycling. Tapped fresh drinking water supplies could be used to hose down car parking areas and recreational spaces. Instead there should be irrigation management to ensure more productive use of water and increase reuse of waste water, effective management of sediment and litter, rather than going down drains, plantings to maximise retention of nutrients, prevent run off to the river.
· The development should follow NSW Integrated Water Cycle Planning Guidelines. NSW Government Greener Place Design Guide should also be adhered to.
4. Impact on our Services
The Community Facility Needs Analysis states that there is capacity for Brooklyn to provide the services for this increased population in Central Coast Council without any additional funding being provided to the Hornsby Shire Council and affected State agencies.
· The consultants engaged failed to consult with individual service stakeholders to establish the extent of extra capacity (if any) is available for services such as those offered by NSW Health, Brooklyn Primary School and day care, and sporting associations.
· Brooklyn rate payers are concerned that we will suffer from overstretched services and increased rate stress to provide services for Central Coast residents
It is negligent that the impact on Brooklyn was not included in the Scope of the Project and any of the analysis and reports, such as the Social Impact Assessment. The Proposal mentions Brooklyn many times and while it lists the community concern regarding the strain of resources and amenity particularly in Brooklyn, it did not mention this as a key issue and did not include any mitigation measures to address this major concern.
5. Impact on the Environment
The impacts on the environment in the Peat Island area affect all residents and users in the Lower Hawkesbury. Also from a broader sustainability perspective:
- Risk to water quality and river health, especially during the extensive development and construction phase and from stormwater runoff as there are no water sensitive urban design principles referenced.
· Risk to the long term health of the mangroves. The environmental capital and ecosystem services that mangroves deliver have positive outcomes for the broader community and must be protected to allow migration of mangroves due to sea level rise.
- Protection of the environment including loss in air quality, access to green and public spaces, pollution of waterways and loss of biodiversity resulting from increased residential and visitor populations and increased development affect the broader community.
- Loss of aboriginal and heritage sites are of significant value to the broader community and should be protected and enhanced by opportunities for interpretation and
Planning and Development Issues
6. Reports Out of Date
The reports that support the rezoning proposal are out of date and contain no substantive facts, discussion or mitigation about the impacts on Brooklyn, and that most services will be provided by the Hornsby Council. Data relied upon is over 5 years old, and the consultants engaged failed to consult with individual service stakeholders to find the extent of extra capacity, if any is available, for services such as those offered by NSW Health, Brooklyn Primary School and day care. Brooklyn rate payers remain concerned that we will suffer from overstretched services and increased rate stress to provide services for Central Coast residents.
7. Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 20 (SREP 20)
The Sydney Regional Environment plan states ‘The scenic quality of the riverine corridor MUST be protected. “MUST” NOT “SHOULD”. The apartments on the waterfront and the 85-room hotel will not provide this guarantee. The fill required to raise the apartments blocks to be built for rising waters will have negative impact on the heritage listed landscape and the protection of the significant aboriginal carvings
8. Zoning and Density pointed out by Hornsby Council.
From our understanding of the Hornsby Council submission regarding the R1 zoning, it can be misleading to consult with communities over a concept plan that may have little reference to what is actually realised during development. R2 or R3 is preferable in this regard and would mean that the number of dwellings or yield from the site is capped to better reflect the intentions of the advertised concept plan. R1 zoning can result in increased density above the estimated 670 based on current figures and dwarf the surrounding villages, intensifying the significant problem of busting at the seams that Brooklyn is presently experiencing.
Density and character: The proposed townhouses, multi-storey units and small lot sizes are not in keeping with the character of the Mooney and river communities.
9. Role of an Administrator
So significant is this proposed rezoning to the communities, the previous administrator at a Central Coast meeting stated in 2016 that this decision was too important to be made by an administrator and should be made by elected officials to ensure community input. The Brooklyn Community questions the transparency and integrity of a State Department acting as the proponent of zoning and LEP changes of this magnitude to be decided by a State appointed administrator.
10. Best practice International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) Process
This State planning process has not followed the best practice IAP2 process where the inform phase of ensuring ‘that public concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered’. Vast amounts of input have not been considered.
11. Alternative Vision for Peat Island
There is an alternative vision for Peat Island that was discussed at a number of meetings and has been voiced many times. This vision includes:
· The Western side of the M1 stays in public hands for public access.
· Incorporates ideas such as an indigenous cultural centre with native garden, cooking classes and tours, a river discovery centre, history centre, boat tours of the ‘best natural art gallery; and could even be a ‘Cockatoo Island in the North part of Greater Sydney’ with eco accommodation, music art and more.
In summary, there are many reasons that this Peat Island Zoning Proposal should not be approved.
Yours sincerely
YOUR NAME HERE
Signature:
Date:
Suburb: