Sharks fume as MP deserts project

[Quigs]

That could be a problem in the dark, but I guess as long as Capsis keeps the bush trimmed. We don't want anyone going down the wrong path.

 

[Dragon Slayer]

Make sure one of the towers is called the Capsis.

I reckon it would really piss him off deluxe.

Make it the tallest one so it avoids getting flooded.......

 

[Quigs]

We were going to name the electricity tower that was in the middle of the northern hill The Capsis.

But we found out it was completely useless so we farked it off instead.

 

[R2Coupe]

O.K.

I know a fair bit about this because I am on the "friends of the sharks" committee and have attended several meetings with Sharks management and the developers. Clearly I am pro development, but I will try and clear up a few of the points in discussion as objectively as I possibly can.

FLOODS: The area is NOT classed by local council or the department of lands as a floodplain. Thats a fact. The developer does however have a few hoops to jump trhough with regards to flood mitigation strategies and plans as the area is on a wetland waterfront and this is why there is no underground parking. This is stock standard for any dwelling in the area and the developer has got all the reports completed and filed with the application. If it gets knocked back, it wont be because of a flooding issue.
TRAFFIC: The developer commissioned a report from McClaren Traffic Engineering and that report was tabled at 68 pages in length. It found out that the traffic impact from the development was said to be "minimal". You can talk all you want about conflicts of interest and true "independence" but McClaren have no ties with the developer other than that they were paid to provide them with an independent service. These people are experts and there are the findings. Im sure that if the results werent so positive the developers may not have been so keen to advertise it, but to suggest that this was a "pay off" is bordering on slanderous and there is no way a big developer like Parkview would be in that game. State Govt has also agreed in principal to a new bus route that links the development region to Woolooware station, Cronulla central and Caringbah.
SCALE and SIZE: Currently the playing fields are under a recreational zoning. The developer is hoping on getting a zoning approval from the PAC that allows the density and height of the 16 stories and 8 towers, which is well within State Govt Regulations and wont be the tallest buildings in the shire. They are basing this application on a report by council that was compiled by Cr Kelly and Provan in 2009 (Since been taken down, I cant find a link) that said words to the effect that the Woolooware foreshore was a "prime location" for development and a "key area" in dealing with the problem of a shortage of housing in the shire. It in fact said specifically that height restrictions should be relaxed and densities should be increased as their were almost no immediate neighbours. This was voted on and approved by Capsis and Provan. Capsis and Provan also approved the previous D.A for the carpark site which was 10 stories in height. The actual article is linked in the SharksForver forums but my log-in isnt working for some reason. The ONLY reason council oppose this is that they resent that the Sharks went to State Govt PAC (part 3a) and chose to by-pass councils final determination rights.
DESPAIR: Old mate r2coupe mentioned that his mrs read a letter from the chairman and it reeked of despair. You can read that letter here and make your own determination. www.infoonsharks.com.au click on the community information tab and then click on board 1. I cant copy and paste the content for some reason.

Thanks for information.

Traffic

Is the Planning Dept. currently obtaining independent studies into the potential traffic and economic impacts of the development?

If true, how does this reflect on the comments made by you about this issue?

Flood

DGR No11 refers to the NSW Floodplain Manual 2005. A quick check on the internet confirms this is an Office of Environment and Heritage publication.

If this is the case, how does advice from the Lands Dept. fit in? Apparently this Dept. doesn't exist anymore?

Scale and Size

Wasn't the earlier DA on the eastern car park for aged care, hotel or motel accom?

If I can find the Leader article wasn't it limited to 5 storeys?

Was the Council policy and the comments from Capsis and Provan based on this proposal or was it for for the current proposal which is in a different location, over three times the height and inclusive of residential units?

 

[Lambretta]

How can anyone expect to get anywhere when there will be a cavalcade of white Camrys with hats on the parcel shelf inching along captain cook drive?

By not living anywhere near Captain Cook Drive I would suggest


Unfortunately - with land prices the way they are in Sydney the only way developers can make the type of profit that makes a development worth doing is to divide, divide and divide again. Squeeze as many units in to as small a space as possible. There arent any other alternatives that can save the Sharks in all honesty.

Howevr as you've pointed out these developments bring numbers and with the numbers comes more and more traffic.

Every other major City in the World has a solution to high density living and increased transport requirements - it's called public transport infastructure. Sydney doesnt have any or has some that is so poor as to be irrelevant - and so our divide and multiply mentality is leading us towards a City that is highly inconvenient to live in - but that amazingly everyone seems to want to live in.

 

[Eion]

Thanks for information.

Flood

DGR No11 refers to the NSW Floodplain Manual 2005. A quick check on the internet confirms this is an Office of Environment and Heritage publication.

If this is the case, how does advice from the Lands Dept. fit in? Apparently this Dept. doesn't exist anymore?

You keep bringing this up.

Let's say for arguments sake the developers adequately cover off your other concerns. Do you say the development should not go ahead because it is on a floodplain?

 

[R2Coupe]

I posted earlier I am sure it will be determined on merit by the PAC.

That is all anyone can ask for I believe.

 

[Feej]

You keep bringing this up.

Let's say for arguments sake the developers adequately cover off your other concerns. Do you say the development should not go ahead because it is on a floodplain?

R2Coupe = Capsis for sure.....

 

[newman]

Sorry I got dept of lands and office of environment and heritage mixed up. Yes, they need to provide flood mitigation plans based on this doc, and they have done that with the submission. The dept of lands no longer exists, but it's irrelevant anyway as they are both state govt departments which the developer is well aware of. The make up of the project has already been designed with the flood limitations in mind.

 

[Ronnie Dobbs]

Sorry I got dept of lands and office of environment and heritage mixed up. Yes, they need to provide flood mitigation plans based on this doc, and they have done that with the submission. The dept of lands no longer exists, but it's irrelevant anyway as they are both state govt departments which the developer is well aware of. The make up of the project has already been designed with the flood limitations in mind.

Which side is subject to flooding? The Swamp? Couldn't be. Would take an act of Capsis main make believe man in the sky to pull that off. When was the last time Botany Bay flooded?

So, which side? Cant they just dig a massive hole there (BOMB THE SHIRE)? Theres nothing else within cooee of the f**king joint.

 

[newman]

Which side is subject to flooding? The Swamp? Couldn't be. Would take an act of Capsis main make believe man in the sky to pull that off. When was the last time Botany Bay flooded?

So, which side? Cant they just dig a massive hole there (BOMB THE SHIRE)? Theres nothing else within cooee of the f**king joint.

Exactly our point RD. And thats why its getting real boring to hear R2Coupe drone on and on and on about the flooding issue and his DGRs. Yes the developer has had to make a few concessions for water inundation and mitigation plans. Yes this is standard procedure. Yes these issues have been addressed.

 

[newman]

Thanks for information.

Traffic

Is the Planning Dept. currently obtaining independent studies into the potential traffic and economic impacts of the development? Honestly dont know, but I would assume that is standard practice.
If true, how does this reflect on the comments made by you about this issue? Are you trying to trap me or something? If the PAC need reports, they can get them, there is no fear from our side. The developers are supremely confident that the application will stand up to any reasonable scrutiny.

Flood

DGR No11 refers to the NSW Floodplain Manual 2005. A quick check on the internet confirms this is an Office of Environment and Heritage publication.

If this is the case, how does advice from the Lands Dept. fit in? Apparently this Dept. doesn't exist anymore? See my previous post.

Scale and Size

Wasn't the earlier DA on the eastern car park for aged care, hotel or motel accom? yes.

If I can find the Leader article wasn't it limited to 5 storeys? Maybe. I was going from memory. At any rate, council have already approved multi-storey developments on this site. No worries about flood. No worries about traffic.

Was the Council policy and the comments from Capsis and Provan based on this proposal or was it for for the current proposal which is in a different location, over three times the height and inclusive of residential units? No. The comments I refer to was pertaining to a seperate report done by council which was commissioned in 2007 on accommodating an exploding shire population and strategies in managing it. I cant find it cause it has been subsequently taken down, but it was there, and it has been submitted with the application.

 

[newman]

http://youtu.be/4s-tAYJWw2I

Interesting video on the topic.

Capsis is deluded. His main issues are

- "Traffic Chaos". The one expert report on this claims the direct opposite.
- "It wont save the Sharks anyway". Ummmmm, 10mill upfront, retail income, residential income and a huge increase in foot traffic through the club. What is he basing this on?
- His solution? "A resort thingy". Make it stop. It hurts.

 

[carcharias]

I love his letters to the leader, especially the ones that
have olden day word and phrases.

Reminds me of my gramps.

 

[newman]

in 2008, Sutherland Shire Council then-Mayor Lorraine Kelly adopted the Draft Housing Strategy (Council Report SDC004-09), guided by the NSW Government's Draft South Subregional Strategy and Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney to 2036.

This overall strategy was further embellished and established throughout the Sutherland Shire Council Annual Report 2009/10 and the SSC State of the Shire Report 2007/08 and its subsequent updates.

Through these carefully-considered reports, Council has adopted a long-term policy direction promoting the need for further mixed-use, high-density development within the Shire.

The reports driving this policy highlighted the following issues that were key drivers behind this need for new development:

To maintain growth in business and employment, the Sutherland Shire needs to increase its population by at least 5% over the next 20 years, requiring at least an additional 14,070 new dwellings in the area.

The Sutherland Shire Local Government Area also faces the problem of an ageing population and needs to attract more young residents to drive the area's stagnating local economy. The Department of Housing recommends this be achieved through building more one and two bedroom apartments, to attract younger families.

The Sutherland Shire currently exceeds the average area of open space per capita by over 13 sqm, with an average of 41 sqm per capita, compared to the 28sqm per capita average for the rest of Sydney.

The 2009/2010 Annual Report targeted ten suburbs as key local districts for development; Caringbah and Woolooware are two of these.

These reports also suggested four levers to increase the local housing
supply:

- Change zonings to high density

- Change floor space ratios

- Increase height limits

- Remove barriers to development

These fundamental changes to SSC Housing Policy are particularly relevant to the proposed Cronulla Leagues Club Re-development.

In the Draft Housing Strategy, the suburb of Woolooware (where the Sharks redevelopment will occur) was identified as having 'development potential overlooking the golf course, with no significant environmental constraints and a potential for views,' and noted to be suitable for high density development.

The suburb of Caringbah, which begins just 300 metres from the proposed Sharks re-development, was identified in the NSW Metrostrategy as having the potential for 'additional mixed use and high density residential developments' whilst the State of the Shire report notes it is suitable for 'increased development, improved retail choice and a medical cluster'. These requirements would be amply satisfied by the Cronulla Sharks Re-development.

 

[Ausguy]

Up up cronulla!!!!

 

[carcharias]

http://youtu.be/4s-tAYJWw2I

Interesting video on the topic.

Capsis is deluded. His main issues are

- "Traffic Chaos". The one expert report on this claims the direct opposite.
- "It wont save the Sharks anyway". Ummmmm, 10mill upfront, retail income, residential income and a huge increase in foot traffic through the club. What is he basing this on?
- His solution? "A resort thingy". Make it stop. It hurts.

Just watched that video , still shaking my head at Capsis.
He is living in a fantasy world, is he mentally all there?

 

[Russell Crowe's Band]

Just watched that video , still shaking my head at Capsis.
He is living in a fantasy world, is he mentally all there

nah dude

being a man of the cloth n all.

 

[Russell Crowe's Band]

so yeah..

this resort thingy.

does if float?

 

[jc155776]

Resort thingy is an awesome solution!

The bloke is senile