Sharks fume as MP deserts project

[carcharias]

or get off the train and walk for 12 minutes.
alcohol free zone.

 

[Russell Crowe's Band]

whats the go with the parking situation for games if approved?

bus

walk....

park in the street.

better than not approved. no more games

 

[newman]

. The 'against' crew in the overwhelming majority are trivial with their stance.... .

I dont think this is true Ausguy. I think that most of them are residents of North Woolooware/Caringbah and are against having to battle increased traffic or having their views impeded or battling more competetitors in their small businesses. There would even be a number of them who want to protect their spacious, green suburb from newcomers and not share it with anyone else (keep it the way it already is). I agree that it looks ridiculous when they carry on about game day parking and floodplains as barriers when the above is the heart of the matter. But they are entitled to their (in my views selfish and insular) opinions just like us on the other side of the debate.

 

[taipan]

Hardly. I say the survival of small businesses in established areas is a huge issue. The impact on them should this proposal get up is deeply worrying as a long term resident of Caringbah.

The fact the site is a floodplain, adjacent to RAMSAR wetlands, aquatic reserve, Towra Point and has severe limitations in terms of accessibility are very important issues which need to be considered.

It is also not a good look when Mr Irvine attacks politicians and local government who adopt a quite reasonable approach of seeking a more moderate development.

Cut the flood plain jazz.the last council gave approval to retirement units on the site of the sharks car park.These units had underground parking.One of the council members was a guy by the name of George Capsis,part of the council that gave overwhelming approval.There was no problem then with so called flood plains (with an underground car park),so how will there be a problem with above ground car parks?

Did you attend the info evenings. I did.I am a hard marker.The work done on environmental issues would leave anything for dead i have seen in Shire developments.

There was an extension granted for everyone to look at the proposal and form an opinion ,by objection or approval ,and contact the various recognised authorities.
The MPs and the councillor were completely out of order,by making a public statement in accord,and the effect of that has only hardened the attitude of those who believe it should be given the go ahead.Until these guys got involved I was one of those silent head nodders,but not any more.It's a bit like a juryman making a statement outside a courtroom,before a trial.Bad form.

There are ways of doing it correctly,the MPs etc ,went about it the wrong way.
Anycase there is such a thing as the ballot box,they will know all about the effects of that in the not too distant future.

Do you understand with the Green Hills development (and its resident population) coupled with the Shark's development,there is a new source of consumers for both the retail at the sharks and in fact the surrounding areas.The population will increase.Or should they all go to Cronulla and Caringbah and accentuate the current lack of parking.
Look at the growing numbers of villas and townhouses springing up all over the place ,this adds to the purchasing power and numbers.

 

[newman]

The scale of the development is the issue and Speakman is not the only politician and local government rep. objecting to the proposal. Speakman is having an each way bet. He knows that the development will get through and is trying to appear "community minded" by siding with immediate residents. When it is approved he will be there to cut the ribbon and rant and rave about better amenities in the shire.

As far as I am aware, there are four supermarkets in Caringbah alone and another very close next to Taren Pt pub. Coles, Woolies, Franklins at Taren Point aaaaaaaand? The parking is shocking at two out of those three and the retail dev is more than a supermarket. It is a medical centre, bulk liquor, restaurants, cafes etc etc. All in the one place with adequate parking and transport access.

And if you think any of the units will be affordable, you are delusional. No-one is pretending that these will be cut price, discount units. They will be priced according to the market. However, they will be cheaper than houses. And the laws of economics stat that the increase in supply eases pressure on house prices in the area.

It is the first time I have ever known mangroves to be improved by building 8 great towers and a retail facility immediately adjacent to them. Of course the physical construction wont help the mangroves, no one is saying that. The developers have set aside cash through the development fund to pump into a 'wetlands protection scheme' and also set up an educational sanctuary in and around the site, possibly with the backing of ET's fishing companies. Also, and this was mentioned in another post, the set-back of the towers is further than TOYOTA, Woolooware Shores and other waterfront properties. There will be NO ENCROACHMENT further than the existing site boundaries.

My wife and I live in Caringbah and have done so for many years. What that means is we are entitled to have our say and we are "no jonny come latelys. And you are of course welcome to your opinion and opposition and I will always treat you with respect, as should everyone else on here. If I can politely ask: How old are you; and what was your leverage buying a property in this wonderful area? I am 30 and currently am looking for a place in the area but am dismayed about the range of properties available and the facilities supporting them.

".

 

[Craigshark]

Why hasn't this been moved to the Sharks forum yet? Madunit..?

 

[newman]

Cut the flood plain jazz.the last council gave approval to retirement units on the site of the sharks car park.These units had underground parking.One of the council members was a guy by the name of George Capsis,part of the council that gave overwhelming approval.There was no problem then with so called flood plains (with an underground car park),so how will there be a problem with above ground car parks?

Did you attend the info evenings. I did.I am a hard marker.The work done on environmental issues would leave anything for dead i have seen in Shire developments.

There was an extension granted for everyone to look at the proposal and form an opinion ,by objection or approval ,and contact the various recognised authorities.
The MPs and the councillor were completely out of order,by making a public statement in accord,and the effect of that has only hardened the attitude of those who believe it should be given the go ahead.Until these guys got involved I was one of those silent head nodders,but not any more.It's a bit like a juryman making a statement outside a courtroom,before a trial.Bad form.

There are ways of doing it correctly,the MPs etc ,went about it the wrong way.
Anycase there is such a thing as the ballot box,they will know all about the effects of that in the not too distant future.

Do you understand with the Green Hills development (and its resident population) coupled with the Shark's development,there is a new source of consumers for both the retail at the sharks and in fact the surrounding areas.The population will increase.Or should they all go to Cronulla and Caringbah and accentuate the current lack of parking.
Look at the growing numbers of villas and townhouses springing up all over the place ,this adds to the purchasing power and numbers.

Magnificent post!

 

[R2Coupe]

An increase in business competition is no grounds for saying no. Such reasoning is anti competitive and illegal if the planning dept use it in a decisions.

The are is not a flood plain. It isn't near a river you idiot! Stop spotting. George capsis lies. Flood Plain? Hahahaha.

The economic impact on existing centres is one consideration for assessment by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. Refer as far back as February 2011 media release when the project was accepted as a major development.

Go check again on the flood issue Sherlock!

 

[R2Coupe]

Severe limitations in terms of accessibility? Please explain?

Yeah those politicians sure acted in a professional manner thats for certain.

DI was actually correct in everything he said and if you cant take that on one the chin then you are one of those who wont change their mind or listen to anything that is fact.

Now 4th time lucky... did you go to any information evenings? afterall you live so close.

You are on a peninsula. You plan an additonal 700 units in a very restricted area. I recall Speakman suggesting this is the largest development in the history of the Shire. You would have what, 2.5 cars per unit? Try addiing these cars to the existing peak hour along Captain Cook Drive, Gannons Road, the Kingsway and President Ave and all cross suburban routss. Accessibility problems, more like chaos!

DI was actually incorrect as he had no say in the exhibition of the proposal. Nor is there any restriction on speaking out about the development. This is Australia! The exhibition is a statutory requirement of the law. I understood Speakman had successfuly asked for an extension to 60 days.

My wife went as I previously advised.

 

[carcharias]

My wife went as I previously advised.

so you didn't actually go yourself?

 

[R2Coupe]

Cut the flood plain jazz.the last council gave approval to retirement units on the site of the sharks car park.These units had underground parking.One of the council members was a guy by the name of George Capsis,part of the council that gave overwhelming approval.There was no problem then with so called flood plains (with an underground car park),so how will there be a problem with above ground car parks?

Did you attend the info evenings. I did.I am a hard marker.The work done on environmental issues would leave anything for dead i have seen in Shire developments.

There was an extension granted for everyone to look at the proposal and form an opinion ,by objection or approval ,and contact the various recognised authorities.
The MPs and the councillor were completely out of order,by making a public statement in accord,and the effect of that has only hardened the attitude of those who believe it should be given the go ahead.Until these guys got involved I was one of those silent head nodders,but not any more.It's a bit like a juryman making a statement outside a courtroom,before a trial.Bad form.

There are ways of doing it correctly,the MPs etc ,went about it the wrong way.
Anycase there is such a thing as the ballot box,they will know all about the effects of that in the not too distant future.

Do you understand with the Green Hills development (and its resident population) coupled with the Shark's development,there is a new source of consumers for both the retail at the sharks and in fact the surrounding areas.The population will increase.Or should they all go to Cronulla and Caringbah and accentuate the current lack of parking.
Look at the growing numbers of villas and townhouses springing up all over the place ,this adds to the purchasing power and numbers.

If you are attempting to compare a retirement centre to 8 13 to 16 storey towers located in completely difference sites, then it is meaningless.

Consideration of how well environmental issues have been addressed are the responsibility of respective Govt Dept. I can't see how you can come to any conclusion on this issue based on the developer's presentation. I'm not surprised you have though.

The public statement from what I read did not mean no development, it meant a more responsible and scaled back development. Something of around 6 stories which is a responsible approach.

 

[R2Coupe]

so you didn't actually go yourself?

No. Ausguy was informed of this many months ago. My wife considers 6 stories a reasonable compromise based on what was presented.

 

[carcharias]

why didn't you go and see for yourself?

 

[jc155776]

You are on a peninsula. You plan an additonal 700 units in a very restricted area. I recall Speakman suggesting this is the largest development in the history of the Shire. You would have what, 2.5 cars per unit? Try addiing these cars to the existing peak hour along Captain Cook Drive, Gannons Road, the Kingsway and President Ave and all cross suburban routss. Accessibility problems, more like chaos!

DI was actually incorrect as he had no say in the exhibition of the proposal. Nor is there any restriction on speaking out about the development. This is Australia! The exhibition is a statutory requirement of the law. I understood Speakman had successfuly asked for an extension to 60 days.

My wife went as I previously advised.

You have to be George Capsis himself.

Or set up the website.

Where do you get 2.5 cars per unit for a development consisting of lots of one and two bedroom apartments???

My guess is you are pulling scarey figures out of your arse.

Oh and what river is the development on? Look up what a flood plan is dipshit, a floodplain is riverine based, not tidal based muppet.

Not only that, George the wanker Capsis himself approved aged care facilities with UNDERGROUND parking a few years back, why was flooding not an issue then?

Maybe because flooding is a load of shit and something Capsis and Co have made up.

 

[jc155776]

why didn't you go and see for yourself?

Because he is no doubt a gutless god bothering coward.

 

[Russell Crowe's Band]

god hates us all

 

[Ausguy]

So you never gave yourself an opportunity to ask questions.

If you had such strong opposition to it why wouldn't you make an effort go to one of the numerous info nights yourself.

2.5 cars per apartment is a ridiculous figure. Based on what?

 

[carcharias]

His wife went.

Apparently she know everything.

 

[snoozer]

His wife went.

Apparently she know everything.

:lol::lol::lol:

 

[KiamaSaint]

From an outsiders perspective, I do not live in the Shire or follow the Sharks clearly, it would seem to me that these local residents have some legitimate concerns that deserve investigation. Perhaps the developers have covered all the bases are some of you Sharks fans are suggesting. It seems those that are pro-development are failing to see these residents concerns objectively because of their passion for the Sharks. That is not a criticism, if the Dragons were in the same boat I would feel exactly the same way.