Sharks fume as MP deserts project

[R2Coupe]

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...

The DGRs also includes the following - "provide an assessment of any floodrisk on site in consideration of any relevant provisions of the NSW Floodplain Development Manual 2005".

The manual applies to floodplains across NSW, in both urban and rural areas.

"The manual was gazetted, as the manual relating to the development of flood liable land for the purpose of section 733 of the Local Government Act 1993"

Section 733 - Exemption from liability - flood liable land, land subject to risk of bush fire and land in coastal zone.

Reference also to Section 149 of the EP&A Act.

 

[Eion]

The DGRs also includes the following - "provide an assessment of any floodrisk on site in consideration of any relevant provisions of the NSW Floodplain Development Manual 2005".

The manual applies to floodplains across NSW, in both urban and rural areas.

"The manual was gazetted, as the manual relating to the development of flood liable land for the purpose of section 733 of the Local Government Act 1993"

Section 733 - Exemption from liability - flood liable land, land subject to risk of bush fire and land in coastal zone.

Reference also to Section 149 of the EP&A Act.

Are you saying the development should not be built because there may be a flood?

 

[R2Coupe]

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.

There are two issues, the first is parking and traffic on game day. The second is the traffic generated by the 700 units and loss of amenity.

The game day parking is not a huge concern as supporters will park in residential areas. It happens at other grounds and will most probably happen at Shark Park. Besides, the proposed game day remote parking options from Mr Irvine of the use of Seymour Shaw, Wanda and Eloeura were rejected by Council.

The widening of Captain Cook Drive would in all probability involve the carpark, part of the golf course and bike track on the southern side of the road near the Captain Cook fields. This would impact on users outside of game day and result in a considerable loss of amenity to residents. To suggest this is easily manageable does not give sufficient weight to the concerns of residents (many support the Sharks).

 

[Quigs]

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.

Capsis just upgraded the pics to include Armageddon

 

[Quigs]

And the one I missed

 

[R2Coupe]

Are you saying the development should not be built because there may be a flood?

I have no say in whether this concept plan is approved. I have confidence the assessment process will be robust and fair to all parties.

As a resident, I believe flooding (among many other matters), is a valid consideration. This is confirmed by the DGRs issued by the Planning Dept.

Other issues such as the cumulative impact of traffic along Captain Cook Drive from the new Greenhills development must also be considered.

Again, I have confidence in the assessment process.

 

[newman]

Post the pyramids and eiffel tower one Quigs

 

[newman]

As a resident, I believe flooding (among many other matters), is a valid consideration. This is confirmed by the DGRs issued by the Planning Dept

Come on! The flooding isnt an issue, you, me and everyone who knows the area knows the flooding isnt an issue. Shark Park, and the Leagues club has never flooded; yet the golf course is regularly under water. You dont REALLY care about flooding.

Why dont you just come out and say that you dont want extra people moving into the area? Those horrible grubs that cant afford to live in houses with backyards shouldnt infiltrate your pristine area! You dont want to share. Thats the real reason you and the rest of the detractors oppose this development. You are within your rights to feel this way, but its a joke to hide behind flooding and environmental concerns when maintaining your peaceful status quo is your real raison detre.

I asked you about ten pages ago how old you are and how you got a foothold in the market. Please share.

 

[R2Coupe]

1. As a resident I do care about flooding and it is a legitimate concern (among many concerns). I have previously stated these and have included them in my objection to the Planning Dept.

2. I don't much care for elitism and like most saved for a deposit, took out a mortgage and have slowly paid that off. I started with fairly humble beginnings, moved to a more substantial home (which was still modest) and then to our current property.

3. Housing affordability and Sydney are nearly mutually exclusive. How much do you think a two bedroom waterfront unit would sell for in this proposal? $750 to $850? A one bedroom in Woolooware North is more affordable but not really for younsters starting out.

With our sons, we will be responsible for providing their first homes. Sad reality is you don't buy your children a car now. You buy them somewhere to live because real estate is unaffordable.

 

[carcharias]

I have spoken with the developers again just today.
I asked again about the "floodplain".

It is not even an issue.
The carpark will be built higher than the existing land now and then the rest will be on top of that again.

 

[carcharias]

f**k ...wish my mumy and daddy bought me a house

 

[Miller was a legend]

1. As a resident I do care about flooding and it is a legitimate concern (among many concerns). I have previously stated these and have included them in my objection to the Planning Dept.

2. I don't much care for elitism and like most saved for a deposit, took out a mortgage and have slowly paid that off. I started with fairly humble beginnings, moved to a more substantial home (which was still modest) and then to our current property.

3. Housing affordability and Sydney are nearly mutually exclusive. How much do you think a two bedroom waterfront unit would sell for in this proposal? $750 to $850? A one bedroom in Woolooware North is more affordable but not really for younsters starting out.

With our sons, we will be responsible for providing their first homes. Sad reality is you don't buy your children a car now. You buy them somewhere to live because real estate is unaffordable.

WTF. Please be my daddy!

Wait, no then I would have to talk to you... forget I said that

 

[newman]

With our sons, we will be responsible for providing their first homes. Sad reality is you don't buy your children a car now. You buy them somewhere to live because real estate is unaffordable.

Ah.Well. There it is! My Mummy and Daddy arent going to chip in for my place in Woolooware. I cant afford a house and have to stand on my own two feet. I have saved my arse off and worked very hard so that I have a deposit and I will be buying somewhere in the area (I will be your neighbour, and I like playing loud music. I hope you like propagandhi), and that will be a unit or townhouse. Trouble is, there are very few decent apartments or townhouses for sale in the area BECAUSE IT IS UNDERSERVICED.

The development goes a long way to helping me, and even helping your sons.

 

[Miller was a legend]

Hey I have an idea.

Coupe buy into the development! get your kids a home. Help the community.

Good stuff

Oh you better buy on the 16th floor, just incase it floods. Damn flood plains are a pain hey?

 

[newman]

3. Housing affordability and Sydney are nearly mutually exclusive. How much do you think a two bedroom waterfront unit would sell for in this proposal? $750 to $850? A one bedroom in Woolooware North is more affordable but not really for younsters starting out.

There will be a range of units and maisonettes at varying prices. Some waterfront places will be highly expensive. Some low level Golf Course front places will be far cheaper. What it will do is flood the area with supply and make existing owners fix their properties up to modern standard to sell, bring the price to equilibrium and meaning that across the board the area will be better serviced for homes. It is currently not well serviced. I know this because I am currently very active in the market. 2 places just sold in my street in Caronia Ave for around $580k. They were some of the better villas on the market but they were ancient in style and fit out. Now they have sold there is almost nothing left on the market.

 

[betcats]

1. As a resident I do care about flooding and it is a legitimate concern (among many concerns). I have previously stated these and have included them in my objection to the Planning Dept.

2. I don't much care for elitism and like most saved for a deposit, took out a mortgage and have slowly paid that off. I started with fairly humble beginnings, moved to a more substantial home (which was still modest) and then to our current property.

3. Housing affordability and Sydney are nearly mutually exclusive. How much do you think a two bedroom waterfront unit would sell for in this proposal? $750 to $850? A one bedroom in Woolooware North is more affordable but not really for younsters starting out.

With our sons, we will be responsible for providing their first homes. Sad reality is you don't buy your children a car now. You buy them somewhere to live because real estate is unaffordable.

Wish my parents had this view. Im 22 and I literally do not know anyone whos parents have bought them a place to live.

 

[Miller was a legend]

There will be a range of units and maisonettes at varying prices. Some waterfront places will be highly expensive. Some low level Golf Course front places will be far cheaper. What it will do is flood the area with supply and make existing owners fix their properties up to modern standard to sell, bring the price to equilibrium and meaning that across the board the area will be better serviced for homes. It is currently not well serviced. I know this because I am currently very active in the market. 2 places just sold in my street in Caronia Ave for around $580k. They were some of the better villas on the market but they were ancient in style and fit out. Now they have sold there is almost nothing left on the market.

Oops, watch out newman. he will latch onto that one as an admission!

 

[Ausguy]

ha ha ha ha

 

[Havoc]

1. As a resident I do care about flooding and it is a legitimate concern (among many concerns). I have previously stated these and have included them in my objection to the Planning Dept.

But why R2Coupe? Even if flooding were a real issue (which IMHO it isn't) how does it affect you? I mean, it's not your property that is on this mythical flood plain anyway.

 

[DJShaksta]

Won't somebody think of the children?
Either that or ring Gids