Sharks fume as MP deserts project

[cleary89]

Mate, sometimes it takes me 10 mins to get from Gymea Bay to sutho! Oh the humanity. Imagine if there were 700 units 2 suburbs away!

 

[adamkungl]

lol does "traffic" even exist in the shire?

 

[carcharias]

lol does "traffic" even exist in the shire?

No
Takes me 25 mins from the shire to hurstville
in peak hour.

Took me 1.5 hours @ 6am from semiyak to cangu in Bali.

Almost the same distance.

So as far as other places go .... No .
Don't get me started on the rest of south east asia.
Or the northern beaches for that matter.

 

[cleary89]

Mate, 33 minutes from Gymea Bay to Beverly Hills North at 8 am. Must admit all the traffic was outside of the shire though.

 

[Miller was a legend]

However, Capsis insisted there were major environmental problems that should be discussed.

''Yes, there are problems - there's flood issues for a start,'' he told The Sun-Herald.

''The risk of a flood at Shark Park isn't some kind of big secret - it flooded a few years ago.

''It is one of a few issues that need to be seriously looked at.

''It's a flood plain and these areas flood. It happened [at Toyota Stadium] a few years ago and all I can say is people have a short memory.

''These so-called one in a hundred year floods seem to be happening a lot more regularly.''

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...ficially-a-club-in-crisis-20110219-1b07i.html

However in 2006 this;

“Council approached the State Government, seeking approval for a Local Environmental Plan to allow for development on-site, as part of a plan for the club’s long-term future.

“This includes a possible conference centre, seniors’ housing, hotel accommodation, motel and shops on Captain Cook Drive at Woolooware.

“These changes, along with Council’s Development Control Plan, will ensure any development of the Cronulla-Sutherland Leagues Club is appropriate.”

The plan relates to the part of the site where the Leagues Club building and carpark are currently situated. Shark Park will not be affected.

The plan also includes:
• the construction of a 40 metre-wide environmental buffer to help protect the Towra Point Aquatic Reserve and Woolooware Bay; and
• at least five metres between any development and a public road, property boundary, public open space, environmental buffer or proposed open space.

Member for Miranda, Barry Collier, said the development was designed to generate local jobs, create extra community and recreational opportunities and potentially add important facilities for seniors.

http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/mediarelplan/fs20060404_332.html

So tell me this;

Has global warming moved at such an alarming rate since 2006 or was Council happy to support a development on a flood plain on the basis that they would only have to watch a bunch of oldies in the aged care facility, float up the bay once in one hundred years?

Hypocritical bunch on nimbys!

 

[rednblack]

However, Capsis insisted there were major environmental problems that should be discussed.

''Yes, there are problems - there's flood issues for a start,'' he told The Sun-Herald.

''The risk of a flood at Shark Park isn't some kind of big secret - it flooded a few years ago.

''It is one of a few issues that need to be seriously looked at.

''It's a flood plain and these areas flood. It happened [at Toyota Stadium] a few years ago and all I can say is people have a short memory.

''These so-called one in a hundred year floods seem to be happening a lot more regularly.''

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...ficially-a-club-in-crisis-20110219-1b07i.html

However in 2006 this;

“Council approached the State Government, seeking approval for a Local Environmental Plan to allow for development on-site, as part of a plan for the club’s long-term future.

“This includes a possible conference centre, seniors’ housing, hotel accommodation, motel and shops on Captain Cook Drive at Woolooware.

“These changes, along with Council’s Development Control Plan, will ensure any development of the Cronulla-Sutherland Leagues Club is appropriate.”

The plan relates to the part of the site where the Leagues Club building and carpark are currently situated. Shark Park will not be affected.

The plan also includes:
• the construction of a 40 metre-wide environmental buffer to help protect the Towra Point Aquatic Reserve and Woolooware Bay; and
• at least five metres between any development and a public road, property boundary, public open space, environmental buffer or proposed open space.

Member for Miranda, Barry Collier, said the development was designed to generate local jobs, create extra community and recreational opportunities and potentially add important facilities for seniors.

http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/mediarelplan/fs20060404_332.html

So tell me this;

Has global warming moved at such an alarming rate since 2006 or was Council happy to support a development on a flood plain on the basis that they would only have to watch a bunch of oldies in the aged care facility, float up the bay once in one hundred years?

Hypocritical bunch on nimbys!

Legitimate question, but do the current and previous proposals occupy the same site? Are the buildings in the same spots? Are the development footprints similar, and in the same locations? By the sound of the above, the 2006 proposal seems to have been for a significantly smaller development. Can anyone tell more about this?

Also, how do you have 5m "between any development and... (an) open space"? Surely the space goes right up to the building's edge?

 

[bartman]

Interesting thread, good to read a range of views.

There's been a challenge set about providing proof of flooding for the site, and how the Council views whether the site is flood-prone... this is from the Sutherland Shire Council website (http://www.sutherlandshire.nsw.gov.au/Environment/Waterways/Flooding_in_Sutherland_Shire):

STUDY NAME
Lower Georges River Floodplain Risk Management Study & Plan
DATE
ongoing
RIVERS AND CREEKS IN STUDY
Lower Georges River from confluence with Woronora River downstream to Botany Bay
DOCUMENTS
[none - usually weblinks for other studies]

So, one can assume by "ongoing" that the Council has been or is re-evaluating whether the area including Endeavour Field and surrounds is flood prone?

But, digging a little bit deeper into the Council site, via the "Shire Maps" link in the first paragraph, you can pull up the Council Flood Prone Land map.... If this works, I have attached the pic for the area around Endeavour Field to this post - there are clearly "areas of potential flood prone land" (pink) and "areas below the flood planning level" (blue) on that site.

It shows clear flood zone issues with the blue area (which I remember in years gone by as a field/parking lot?), and more worryingly the pink area over Solander Filed (if that's part of the proposed development). That's as good as it gets that there's proof it is considered a flood worry, and no wonder the development plans are not sailing through approvals smoothly...

 

[Quigs]

I think us Sharks are on a winner here.

Long term viability.

Even longer term viability too if you take into account Capsis flood plain.

Do you know how munch land values are in Venice?

 

[Miller was a legend]

Interesting thread, good to read a range of views.

There's been a challenge set about providing proof of flooding for the site, and how the Council views whether the site is flood-prone... this is from the Sutherland Shire Council website (http://www.sutherlandshire.nsw.gov.au/Environment/Waterways/Flooding_in_Sutherland_Shire):

STUDY NAME
Lower Georges River Floodplain Risk Management Study & Plan
DATE
ongoing
RIVERS AND CREEKS IN STUDY
Lower Georges River from confluence with Woronora River downstream to Botany Bay
DOCUMENTS
[none - usually weblinks for other studies]

So, one can assume by "ongoing" that the Council has been or is re-evaluating whether the area including Endeavour Field and surrounds is flood prone?

But, digging a little bit deeper into the Council site, via the "Shire Maps" link in the first paragraph, you can pull up the Council Flood Prone Land map.... If this works, I have attached the pic for the area around Endeavour Field to this post - there are clearly "areas of potential flood prone land" (pink) and "areas below the flood planning level" (blue) on that site.

It shows clear flood zone issues with the blue area (which I remember in years gone by as a field/parking lot?), and more worryingly the pink area over Solander Filed (if that's part of the proposed development). That's as good as it gets that there's proof it is considered a flood worry, and no wonder the development plans are not sailing through approvals smoothly...

If you look closely, the BLUE you refer to is in fact the lighter blue and hence not considered needing a flood management plan. The white is not at risk and the pink ( I believe to be outside the building area) is considered to be in need of a flood risk management plan.

Hardly damaging material in my opinion and nothing unusual for any bay side development.

 

[kmav23]

Hello mcfly

 

[bartman]

If you look closely, the BLUE you refer to is in fact the lighter blue and hence not considered needing a flood management plan. The white is not at risk and the pink ( I believe to be outside the building area) is considered to be in need of a flood risk management plan.

Hardly damaging material in my opinion and nothing unusual for any bay side development.

It looked like the Medium Blue to my eyes - still deemed to be a flood prone area (for those posters earlier on this page demanding some sort of proof). But yes, not one envisioned to have major problems with evacuation needs.

The pink area is known to be flood prone, hence the need for a plan - and more "proof" for those earlier in the thread that were demanding some. But I have no knowledge of the development footprint, and have to take your word that area may be outside the building area (but it's reasonable that if you build next to a flood prone area, then management plan or not your development plans had better take that element into consideration, rather than have the potential to make it worse).

Good luck with the ongoing debates!

 

[Slackboy72]

Just saw a great sign "sick of sitting in traffic? Theres much more to come... Stopthesharksdevelopment.com" just at that round about down from cronulla station near tompkin oval. I actually laughed, did a u turn and tried to take a pic. Too hard to do while driving though

I looked it up and it's http://www.stopthesharksdevelopment.com.au

 

[DJShaksta]

Just saw a great sign "sick of sitting in traffic? Theres much more to come... Stopthesharksdevelopment.com" just at that round about down from cronulla station near tompkin oval. I actually laughed, did a u turn and tried to take a pic. Too hard to do while driving though

That sign won't last long.

 

[KiamaSaint]

I check out the "stopthesharkdevelopment.com.au" website and of course they mentioned the traffic issues. Interestingly no mention of environmental considerations, not a concern apparently.

I had to laugh at this objection though:

"LOSS OF GAME DAY PARKING
The Sharks football games have long been a favourite outing for Sutherland Shire residents. Families and Fans enjoy the local atmosphere of parking close to the stadium and walking to the field. We object to the proposition of offsite parking, and the proposal of mass parking at Wanda beach and buses used to transport you to and from your car. The extended travel times with buses, the hassle, and no doubt extra cost for families will turn the average sharks supporter away. This would be almost impossible for families with young children."

It seems that they want their cake and eat it too.

As for these pictures on the home page, I actually think they do the developer a favour. They don't look too bad imo.

Traffic is still going to be a big sticking point.

 

[jc155776]

I have no doubt Traffic is a legitimate concern Kiama.

BUT it is very easily manageable by the State widening the road. It is needed anyway so why pull the plug on a development just because the State doesn't want to do their job?

Plus the extra demand will be about 1000 cars at peak hour. Sounds like a lot, in reality it isn't.

I love how residents somehow think they own the streets that they live in an noone else should be allowed to park in front of their house.

Easily managed anyway on gameday with limited parking times and resident permits like Suncorp.

 

[KiamaSaint]

My comment about the game day parking was regarding the fact that they want a Sharks team to support but they are opposed to the development that will make the team viable in the long term.

Mind you, I personally don't think the proposal should go ahead just because the Shark's viability depends on it.

 

[carcharias]

not a car in sight either.



I want to sit here and wave at the boats while quaffing a few cold ones pre game.
who's with me?

 

[KiamaSaint]

Maybe for the local derby mate. Oh wait, the NRL always schedules those on a Monday night.

 

[rednblack]

As for these pictures on the home page, I actually think they do the developer a favour. They don't look too bad imo.

I agree, they don't seem too bad from these images. The artist that created them obviously didn't read his brief! If the anti-development group wanted to show how BAD they thought it'd be, surely they'd seek out images that better suit their purposes. For instance, removing the power lines would've made the buildings seem larger. At the moment, they don't look too big because the angle and perspective make the buildings appear smaller or comparable to the power poles, whereas in reality they will be significantly larger. If the artist had removed these, they could easily have made the rendered impressions look much less appealing (which is what the anti-development group are trying to do here).
Reeks of amateurism to me, but still, they don't look too bad in these images.

 

[newman]

Legitimate question, but do the current and previous proposals occupy the same site? Are the buildings in the same spots? Are the development footprints similar, and in the same locations? By the sound of the above, the 2006 proposal seems to have been for a significantly smaller development. Can anyone tell more about this?

Also, how do you have 5m "between any development and... (an) open space"? Surely the space goes right up to the building's edge?

The previous development occupied only the car-park site on the eastern side of the club. This area will be occupied in the new development by a shopping centre, so yes they are in the same place. The residential section is on the 2 fields on the western side of the club, which was not slated to be used in the last development. The pink area on the flood diagram is Solander fields which is further west of the development site, and not included in the development.