LD-Ref: 2018LD-00025

11 July 2018

To whom it may concern,

is writing to oppose the proposed 15-unit development at 7 Killuke

Crescent, Crescent Head – Reference Number 2018LD-00025 (Application number T6-18-25).

It is the understanding that the application is for a development of a 4 story, 15-unit apartment building.

This proposed building violates the Kempsey Development Control Plan 2013 (KDCP2013) and the aims of

the Kempsey Local Environmental Plan 2013 (KLEP2013). Some examples of how these regulations are not

being are as follows.

The height of the building at 17 metres is 6 metres higher than the 11 metres as legislated for in the KLEP

2013 Height of Building Map - Sheet HOB_012B and the scale, height and length of a building and walls are

NOT appropriate to the local residential character (DCP D02).

The height and bulk of the proposed development is not in character with the existing development. At 4

storeys high, the proposed development is inconsistent with the existing development in Crescent Head

and with that of the surrounding neighbourhood. Only 2 of the 11 sites within this zone have 2 storey

buildings and these are built into the hill. The proposed development is inappropriate given that the site in

on a corner, on a flat expanse and opposite cleared public land. It will rise out of country which is naturally

tea tree flats or swampland. The area within this zone is viewed from many places in Crescent Head and

the visual impact on residents and tourists should be considered.

There is conflict with adjacent land uses and the density of the development is NOT “compatible with the

desired natural character of the neighbourhood and locality” (Kempsey DCP DO2). The density of the

development is inappropriate for the location near the Primary School, Pre-School and sporting fields. The

scale and design of the development will result in heavier traffic and riskier driving behaviours in an area

where there is already intense pedestrian use by infants and children and at vehicle drop offs and pickups

at school times. There will need to be an additional school zone across Killuke Crescent which removes even

more on-street parking options.

The problems will be exacerbated if, as it seems likely, the units are used for holiday rentals.

The impact on the on-street parking will present further hazards for pedestrians. Even if there is parking for

each unit, most households now have at least two if not more vehicles, especially if the units are used for

holiday rentals. It is possible that there could be an additional 15-30 cars regularly parked on Killuke

Crescent and Baker Drive and probably spilling into the swimming pool/sports field carpark. Council needs

to remain mindful that there is another underdeveloped block on Killuke Crescent and if this inappropriate

Crescent Head NSW 2440

development is allowed the precedent could see a similar high-rise development creating impossible traffic

demands on this area around the School and Pre-School.

Section 3.5.2 states that “A Character Analysis” may be required for the development located within

Crescent Head ad that the character analysis needs to demonstrate that the design of the development has

considered and responded to the landscape, streetscape and building elements that contribute to the

character of the area. Has there been a character analysis undertaken for this DA? The proposed building

does not consider, respect or reflect the landscape, streetscape and building element that contribute to the

character of Crescent Head.

If this development is allowed, there will be a significant loss of amenity to the adjacent dwellings and land

(DCP DO2) for the community in general and particularly for the Pre-School and other neighbouring

properties.

There will also be a loss of privacy for the adjacent and neighbouring properties (ref DCP DO6) including

that of Pre-School and the Primary School. The neighbouring properties will also have their solar access and

privacy restricted to the positioning of the proposed building, making it impossible to screen from their

neighbours and will significantly affect their enjoyment of their homes (Red DCP DO2 & DCP DO5).

which represents 37 families within the

community, believe that the proposed development will adversely affect the way that families access and

utilise the public open space of the park, athletic fields and footpath. The amenity and enjoyment of this

public area will be affected because of the height, scale and invasive nature of the proposed development.

It is our understanding that the application must provide written justification and demonstrate how the

proposal achieves the desired outcomes as articulated in the SCP despite not achieving the development

requirement as articulated in the planning instruments used by Kempsey Council. If approved, Council

should also provide justification as to why a building that does not meet requirements was passed.

By the nature of its density, height, scale and location the proposed development is unacceptable to the

local residents and out of keeping with the seaside village atmosphere and aesthetic which is enjoyed by

residents and visitors alike. will be detrimentally and severely affected should this proposed

development occur.

We urge council to reject this proposal and to only consider designs for the site that meet planning

requirements and are consistent with the other developments in the area. The construction certificate

issued in 2007 should no longer apply as there has not been substantial work commenced. Any drainage

work already in place was undertaken to retain the certificate but in reality, should not impact on future

building. It is our understanding that this area is also a Food Prone Area as water sits in large pools for an

extended period after a good rain.

If possible, we would like to be informed when this matter is before Kempsey Council and would welcome

the opportunity to address the meeting. We can be contacted on

Warm regards,

03/07/2018

Kempsey Shire Council

PO Box 3078

West Kempsey 2440

Ref. – DA Application 2018/LD- 00025

Multiple Dwellings and Strata Subdivision at 7 KILLUKE CRESCENT, CRESCENT HEAD

To Whom it may concern

As a home owner and full time Resident of Crescent Head, I wish to lodge an objection to

the proposed development at the above address.

Reasons being

• The height off the proposed building is approx. 2.4metres higher than the maximum

building height permitted in the area as per Kempsey LEP 2013 and as detailed in the

NSW Government Map HOB-012B-020-201 and as such the Application for this DA

should be rejected.

• The Development Plans as issued for comment are completely out of character with

the surrounding properties and the village in general. The plans fail to meet the

conditions of the KLEP2013 Part 5.5 (i) (b) (ix) which is to ensure that the type, bulk,

scale and size of any development is appropriate for the location and protects and

improves the natural scenic qualities of the surrounding area.

• As Killuke Crescent is the main vehicle and pedestrian access to both the Primary

School and the Pre School/ Long Day Care Centre there should be concern for the

overflow parking from the said development and the amount of extra street traffic in

the area (Baker Drive and Killuke) My concern here would be the safety of the

parents and children on their way to and from school both in cars and on foot.

• The privacy of adjoining residents has been totally disregarded by the developer

because of the proposed height (4 storeys) and density of the development

I am not against development in the area if it is within council specifications but this

development fails badly to follow the KLEP and LEP

In a meeting with one of your council officers on Friday 29th we were told, yet again, that

the Kempsey LEP 2013 is “just a guideline”.

I’m afraid that is incorrect.

As stated in councils own documentation :-

“ LEP stands for Local Environmental Plan. It is the key planning tool used by Council to

manage, coordinate, control and guide landuse zones and associated development within

Kempsey Shire. Every council has an LEP and the Draft LEP 2012 has been planned in

accordance with new requirements for the preparation of Shire wide LEPs. The Draft

Kempsey LEP 2012 is what is referred to as a ‘standard’ LEP”.

An LEP is a legal document and is in the document category of Environmental Planning

Instruments (EPI’s)

Simple solution……Have the developer remove the top floor of the development and keep it

within the LEP

Thank you for allowing me to put forward my objections to the proposed development.

Regards

26th June 2018

Crescent Head

Dear Sir or Madam,

Re: Application number: 2018/LD-00025

Proposed development: RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING (15 APARTMENTS)

Property: 7 KILLUKE CRESCENT, CRESCENT HEAD Lot 5 DP40088

Applicant: BUCK AND SIMPLE ?

Consent authority: Kempsey Shire Council

Exhibition period: 19/06/2018 to 02/07/2018

I was very shocked to see the full extent of this proposal. When I read the details above about a residential flat building of 15 apartments, I initially thought that flat meant a single story building and even though I thought 15 seemed a lot and very dense living, I thought to myself that at least the building proposed was only 1 story! Imagine my shock when I read the whole proposal and saw the accompanying illustrations: to discover that what was proposed was virtually a 4 storied structure, with above ground parking on the first level and 3 stories of apartments on top of that!

What is proposed is absolutely ridiculous and not at all in keeping with the village like atmosphere that makes Crescent Head so well known and favoured. We understand that things need to progress, but this is a big backward step if Kempsey Shire Council approves such a development plan and ones like it. There are enough over developed towns on the coast (Port Macquarie and Coffs Harbour to name two), and people of Crescent Head and the local Macleay Valley pride ourselves and take pleasure from knowing that our beautiful beachside villages like Crescent Head have not been spoilt with over-development and still retain a lot of their original charm, which once lost to over-development, can never ever be claimed back again. There is a huge cost to pay for over-developing quaint little seaside villages like Crescent Head. The residents enjoy the community feel of how it is now, as do so many of the visitors, holiday makers and local shire people who choose to visit it. We can never take this for granted and it must be protected for its uniqueness and kept from becoming just another overdeveloped town like the others mentioned.

There used to be a 2-story limit on any building in Crescent Head. We have some 3-storied buildings existing, but never have we had 4-storied developments proposed and passed before. At the end of Killuke Crescent, there is a 3-storied set of flats, which is not too bad, simply because they are at the end of the street and overlook the street, making little impact on neighbours and other nearby dwellings. The proposed 15 apartments at 7 Killuke Crescent, will be in a more prominent location, towering over the 4 townhouse units that are at 6 Killuke Crescent (I am the owner of Unit 1), but also towering over the low level

units on the adjoining north side boundary fence, not to mention being high and imposing to the house dwellers on the other side of Baker Drive.

The proposed huge apartment block is L-shaped and extends the full boundary length of each colorbond fence. Because it is 4 stories high (the garages above ground being counted as the first story), it will completely block out all sea breezes from the East for 6 Killuke Crescent residents who as a result, will find it extremely hot in summer particularly! Also there are 3 levels of apartment balconies that overlook all four units at 6 Killuke Crescent plus the pool on their common ground, that residents will no longer be able to enjoy with the privacy that they have had previously. So, privacy for those living in our units will be very much affected, not to mention the level of noise and increased activity due to the dense living of the 15 apartments proposed!! Also, Killuke Crescent is a relatively quiet street but still comfortably handles parents dropping their children off for school, or children choosing to walk that way to enter the nearby school grounds. There are parents who drive or walk their toddlers to the nearby preschool centre which is at the far end of Killuke Crescent. If this 15 - apartment proposal goes ahead, there will be considerably more traffic as residents from the 15 apartments drive their cars from the garages which lead out onto Killuke Crescent. This increase in traffic will not be safe, due to Killuke Crescent being a walkway for many school children and their families. Another concern, is the proposed planting of large trees (as shown in the accompanying illustrations of the proposed development). At 6 Killuke Crescent , owners of the 4 units have paid a considerable amount of money to have large trees removed from the common ground, because of the endless amount of litter and mess they caused through the dropping of their leaves, particularly into the pool. This resulted in expensive pool bills, because the water was always dirty and needed cleaning. Having apartments over the fence with large trees planted or leafy vegetation on 3 levels of balconies, is going to result in the same pool problems that we have tried to eliminate.

I strongly object to the building of these 15 units. There are too many units for the size of Lot 5 DP40088 (which is 7 Killuke Crescent) and dense living in Crescent Head should not be encouraged. Also, the height of the garages above ground (being level 1), with an extra 3 levels of apartments on top, make this proposal totally unsuitable for the area and for the village itself! Someone is choosing to build these units simply to make an exorbitant amount of money, and they are not considering the huge impact it will make on nearby residents and the inappropriateness of such a development in the village of Crescent Head. Lastly, the future values of our units are going to be affected and if unit owners (at 6 Killuke Crescent) want to sell their units in the future, this could prove difficult. People are not going to want to buy a unit that is dwarfed by the imposing monstrosity of the proposed building development, and because of all other reasons listed in this submission. I hope Kempsey Shire Council seriously considers the concerns put forward and is firm in limiting the type/s of developments passed in Crescent Head so it has good control of how it is to be in the future. There should be no 4-storied developments in Crescent Head at all and if 3-storied developments are proposed, the impact they will make to nearby dwellings and residents, needs to determine whether their proposed location in the village is suitable or not. The Kempsey Shire Council has the power to make balanced, informed decisions and

residents of the Shire and of Crescent Head trust them to do so responsibly. Please do not pass this proposal for 7 Killuke Crescent for the reasons given in this submission. Yours sincerely

Received this end of last week and have only had time to look at it in depth now. Front page says Residential flat building (15 apartments). When I read that I pictured a one storied building, thinking that flat meant single story, so even though 15 seemed a lot and very dense living, I thought to myself, at least it is only 1 story! My mistake !!!! Enclosed pictures show a bottom level which is above ground and has vehicle access for parking, obviously this is where the garages are, but they are above ground. Above this level there are 3 stories of apartments, making 4 stories altogether!!!! pictured in one of the illustrations and will be very much dwarfed by what they are proposing!! The huge apartment block goes the full boundary length of each colourbond fence, being L-shaped. It will block out all sea breezes from the East because of its tremendous height so that people living in the 4 units at 6 Killuke Crescent will receive no sea breezes and will find it very hot in summer particularly! Also there are 3 levels of apartment balconies that overlook our unit block, which means that privacy for those living in our units will be very much affected, not to mention the level of noise due to the dense living of the 15 apartments proposed!! The development application and the documents accompanying the application may be inspected at Kempsey Shire Council any time between 8.30 and 4.30 Mon-Fri from 19.6.18 to 2.7.18 plus a submission (objection) may be made in the same period, so there is not much time!! I just wondered if you had seen the proposal and whether you were going to make an objection/submission. (It would be great if Unit 2 & 3 owners also considered doing this, but I have not had any luck contacting them in the past and Strata has even found it difficult to do so. Anyway, Linda and Shanagh, I'm about to go to sleep, but thought I would email you quickly to see what you thought. are you in Crescent Head or travelling? I know you mentioned t

1

09/07/2018

Kempsey Shire Council

Po Box 3078

West Kempsey

NSW 2440

Reference – DA Application 2018/LD-00025

Multiple Dwellings and Strata Subdivision at 7 Killuke Crescent, Crescent Head

Dear Sir/Ms

As the owner and resident at I wish to lodge an objection to the proposed

(15 off) multiple dwellings at 7 Killuke Crescent, Crescent Head as per the following:-

The height of the proposed building is approximately 2.4 mtrs higher than the designated

maximum building height permitted in this area as per Kempsey LEP 2013 and as detailed in the

NSW Government Map HOB_012B_020_201

The development application’s attached Statement of Environmental Effects (SoEE) fails to

identify and establish a creditable argument to justify the height variance and as such, the

request to vary the KLEP height restriction and associated DA Application should be rejected.

The development plans as issued for comment detail a development completely out of

character with the surrounding properties and village charm of Crescent Head and fails to meet

the conditions of KLEP 2013 Part 5.5 (i) (b) (ix) which is to ensure that the type bulk, scale and

size of any development is appropriate for the location and protects and improves the natural

scenic quality of the surrounding area.

Note:-

I have been advised by Kempsey Council Planning Officer that the Kempsey LEP 2013 is a guideline only,

however the following extract from the Kempsey Council Website does not indicate “Guideline” status

only, as a result, maximum building heights for this area must be enforced as per the document.

What is a LEP?

LEP stands for Local Environmental Plan. It is the key planning tool used by Council to manage,coordinate, control and guide landuse zones, and associated development within Kempsey Shire.Every Council has an LEP, and the Draft Kempsey LEP 2012 has been prepared in accordancewith new requirements for the preparation of Shire Wide LEPs. The Draft Kempsey LEP 2012 iswhat is referred to as a "Standard LEP".

2

An LEP contains an associated set of zoning maps.

An LEP is a legal document and is in the document category of Environmental PlanningInstruments (EPI's). Council's current LEP, the Kempsey LEP (1987) is located on the KempseyShire Council website and the NSW Legislation website atwww.legislation.nsw.gov.au/maintop/view/inforce/epi+204+1987+cd+0+N

LEPs have their origins in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (NSW) 1979 (TheEP& A Act). LEPs sit within the framework and hierarchy of other State and Federal legislation.

Further objections to the proposed development are as follows :-

The overall height of the proposed development, the location of windows and outdoor areas

contribute to a direct invasion of the privacy of adjoining properties and will potentially

generate a noise level including A/C generated noise (exacerbated during peak holiday periods)

that is totally unacceptable to the permanent residents of adjoining properties and will detract

from the peaceful enjoyment of those adjoining properties.

As Killuke Crescent is the designated main entry access road for Crescent Head Primary School

and the Crescent Head Community Pre School, it should be a consideration of Council that the

effects of the overflow of parking from the proposed development will cause further pressure

on the immediate road precinct and may prejudice the safety of school children and parents etc

walking to and from the school and pre school.

The proposed height and density of the development demonstrates the total disregard of the

developer to consider the privacy, comfort and peaceful enjoyment of adjoining residents, and

the argument as detailed in the Statement of Environmental Effects fails to address the impact

of the development on neighboring properties and the greater Crescent Head community is not

achieved and as a such, Kempsey Council should reject the proposal.

The Statement of Environmental Effects Appendix C – SEPP 65 Assessment notes that condition

2F Building Separation is not satisfied, as the distance between the proposed building and the

adjoining properties at 5 Baker Drive is only 5.95 mtrs and not the 12 metres as per the

legislation.

The statement in Appendix C detailing reasons to allow variation to the building separation

refers to the adjoining R3 zoned properties as such –

“In areas that are undergoing transition from low density to higher densities, minimum

building separation distances may not be achieved until area completes its transition”

3

This statement cannot be plausibly accepted as a reason to vary the building separation

distances in this instant as the affected property at is a strata development that is

little more than 20 years old and highly unlikely to be redeveloped for many decades to come.

Further to the argument to reduce the building separation distance, it is noted in the argument

that the screen planting designated to occur in the area between the proposed building and the

adjoining property at 5 Baker Drive using Luscious Water Gums to achieve a 9 mtr high buffer

would not be feasible as the head width of the tree at the designated height is around 4 – 5 mtrs

diameter, which would encroach across the boundary and drop branches, leaves and plant litter

etc. into gutters and the private open space of the strata villas located along the boundary of 5

Baker Drive. The foliage would also restrict winter sunlight from entering the private outdoor

living space of the same single level strata villas.

The other obvious reason to reject this screen planting option is that the Council’s main sewer

line is located approximately 1 mtr on the development side of the boundary fence and in time

would be directly affected by the screen planting.

It also should be noted that the adjoining boundary with 6 Killuke St has the stormwater line of

the proposed development running along that boundary fence and as such would also negate

the option of screen planting in this area.

It is apparent that the arguments put forward in Appendix C of the Statement of Environmental Effects

fails to satisfactorily argue the case for Council to vary the building separation distance, and as such the

development proposal must be rejected.

I further note that flood height as detailed in the proposed development specification is incorrect, as the

affected land falls under the same flood zone and determination from Council that was dictated in the

DA conditions affecting my property at 36 Pacific St Crescent Head, which specified that I must achieve a

minimum habitable floor height of 4800mm FFL.

Calculating the 4800 FFL of the lowest habitable floor level at the proposed development with three

levels at 3300mm plus 500mm roof height still gives a maximum height of the building at 11.6 mtrs

above ground level which is still 600 mm higher than the maximum permitted building height.

I will be closely watching Councils determination on the request by the developer to vary the flood

zoning for this property as a result of “existing precedents in the immediate area”, as my previous

documented meetings with Council Environmental Engineer Mr A J Castle regarding a variation on

similar grounds of flood heights for my recent development (2015) was summarily rejected out of hand

and further endorsed with the statement that if I took my request to the Land & Environment Court,

then Council would utilize all of its resources to fight my application in the court as they did with the

previous owner of my block of land.

4

Further to my initial objections and as a result of the proposed height and density of the development,

the following list itemizes the failure to satisfy the recommendations for development of the Kempsey

DCP 2013, Chapter C1 – Residential Development – Urban Areas.

Part 2.0 (d) – The proposal does not ensure that the development density is not beyond the

existing capacity of the infrastructure and services of the area.

Part 2.0 (j) The development fails to satisfy the condition to enhance and protect the unique

character of Crescent Head due it’s bulk, height and density in relation to adjoining properties.

Part 5 – D02 – The proposal does not satisfy the recommendation that the development density

is compatible with the desired natural character of the neighborhood and locality as its height

bulk and density is directly at odds with adjoining properties.

There is no doubt in my mind that the developer has failed to argue the case to allow the variations as

stated and as such, Kempsey Council must reject this development application out of hand.

I will be attending the Council meeting when this application comes up for mention and will be

requesting to be able to talk on the proposal before Council.

I am personally disappointed that Kempsey Council has failed to advertise this development application

more widely and sort greater public opinion on what is undoubtedly the largest development proposed

in Crescent Head for many years.

Thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns and objections to the proposed development.

Yours Faithfully

1

02/07/2018

Kempsey Shire Council

Po Box 3078

West Kempsey

NSW 2440

Reference – DA Application 2018/LD-00025

Multiple Dwellings and Strata Subdivision at 7 Killuke Crescent, Crescent Head

Dear Sir/Ms

As the owner and resident at I wish to lodge an objection to the proposed

(15 off) multiple dwellings at 7 Killuke Crescent, Crescent Head as per the following:-

• The height of the proposed building is approximately 2.4 mtrs higher than the designated

maximum building height permitted in this area as per Kempsey LEP 2013 and as detailed in the

NSW Government Map HOB_012B_020_201 and as such, the DA Application should be rejected.

• The development plans as issued for comment detail a development completely out of

character with the surrounding properties and village charm of Crescent Head and fails to meet

the conditions of KLEP 2013 Part 5.5 (i) (b) (ix) which is to ensure that the type bulk, scale and

size of any development is appropriate for the location and protects and improves the natural

scenic quality of the surrounding area.

Note:-

I have been advised by Kempsey Council that the Kempsey LEP 2013 is a guideline only, however the

following extract from the Kempsey Council Website does not indicate “Guideline” status only, as a

result, maximum building heights for this area must be enforced as per the document.

What is a LEP?

LEP stands for Local Environmental Plan. It is the key planning tool used by Council to manage,

coordinate, control and guide landuse zones, and associated development within Kempsey Shire.

Every Council has an LEP, and the Draft Kempsey LEP 2012 has been prepared in accordance

with new requirements for the preparation of Shire Wide LEPs. The Draft Kempsey LEP 2012 is

what is referred to as a "Standard LEP".

An LEP contains an associated set of zoning maps.

An LEP is a legal document and is in the document category of Environmental Planning

Instruments (EPI's). Council's current LEP, the Kempsey LEP (1987) is located on the Kempsey

2

Shire Council website and the NSW Legislation website at

www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/maintop/view/inforce/epi+204+1987+cd+0+N

LEPs have their origins in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (NSW) 1979 (The

EP& A Act). LEPs sit within the framework and hierarchy of other State and Federal legislation.

Further objections to the proposed development are as follows :-

• The overall height of the proposed development, the location of windows and outdoor areas

contribute to a direct invasion of the privacy of adjoining properties and will potentially

generate a noise level (exacerbated during peak holiday periods) that is totally unacceptable to

the permanent residents of adjoining properties and will detract from the peaceful enjoyment

of those adjoining properties.

• As Killuke Crescent is the designated main entry access road for Crescent Head Primary School

and the Crescent Head Community Pre School, it should be a consideration of Council that the

effects of the overflow of parking from the proposed development will cause further pressure

on the immediate road precinct and may prejudice the safety of school children and parents etc

walking to and from the school and pre school.

• The proposed height and density of the development demonstrates the total disregard of the

developer to consider the privacy, comfort and peaceful enjoyment of adjoining residents, and

as a such, Kempsey Council should reject the proposal.

Further to my initial objections and as a result of the proposed height and density of the development,

the following list itemizes the failure to satisfy the recommendations for development of the Kempsey

DCP 2013, Chapter C1 – Residential Development – Urban Areas.

• Part 2.0 (d) – The proposal does not ensure that the development density is not beyond the

existing capacity of the infrastructure and services of the area.

• Part 2.0 (j) The development fails to satisfy the condition to enhance and protect the unique

character of Crescent Head due it’s bulk, height and density in relation to adjoining properties.

• Part 5 – D02 – The proposal does not satisfy the recommendation that the development density

is compatible with the desired natural character of the neighborhood and locality as its height

bulk and density is directly at odds with adjoining properties.

3

I further note that flood height as detailed in the proposed development specification are incorrect, as

the affected land falls under the same flood zone and determination from Council that was dictated in

the DA conditions affecting my property at 36 Pacific St Crescent Head, which specified that I must

achieve a minimum habitable floor height of 4800mm FFL.

Calculating the 4800 FFL of the lowest habitable floor level at the proposed development with three

levels at 3300mm plus 500mm roof height still gives a maximum height of the building at 11.6 mtrs

above ground level which is still 600 mm higher than the maximum permitted building height.

Simple answer is to remove the top level of units and be compliant with the Kempsey LEP 2013

Thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns and objections to the proposed development.

Yours Faithfully

Crescent Head

Dear Sir or Madam,

Re: Application number: 2018/LD-000025 Proposed development: Residential flat building (15 apartments

7 Killuke Crescent, Crescent Head Lot 5 DP40088 T6-18-25

Applicant: Buck and Simple- Doers of stuff

27th June 2018

I am writing to you to object strongly to the proposed residential flat building (15 apartments) 7 Killuke Cres Crescent Head lot 5 DP40088.

We are the owners of and occupy Crescent Head. We purchased our property with the knowledge of DA approval for the building of a block of units relying on the zoning and building height controls to protect Crescent Head from losing it's charming individual beach village quality and turning into another commercialised tourist destination catering to the masses by squeezing people in boxes. The original design, which was displayed on a billboard on the block in question, although dated, the design attempted to be in keeping with the streetscape and observed compliance of Crescent Head zoning of R3 medium density residential building height of 11 metres.

Objections are as follows:

Non-compliance with zoning R3 medium density residential building height of 11 metres, the proposed height is 17 metres, 6 metres above zoning standards (as per Kempsey Council LEP).

Privacy — (see attached #1) Nine of the fifteen proposed balconies on the submitted plans face our property but more importantly

Disregarding this intrusion by providing only partial privacy

screens (as per plans) illustrates little forethought on the impact of the loss of our privacy by the developers, Buck & Simple doers of stuff.

Nine of the fifteen proposed balconies on the submitted plans face our property and these overlook our private pool which is for the sole use of the residents of residents of No. 7 will be able to look over the balconies and watch our residents swim in our pool. As one of 3 older women living here I find this to be distressing to be made to feel "on display". Our are a small community of young children and families who help each other to make sure we are all safe, having people watching from their balconies our children, teenagers, visitors and our residents would dramatically

change that. The entire side of the proposed development, which faces number are balconies, so please imagine the feeling of exposure we will experience by just taking a simple swim in our pool. The developers, Buck & Simple doers of stuff have either not done their homework to ensure neighbours privacy or sadly do not care.

Solar access — The proposed development plans provided shadow diagrams, and while it is understood the winter equinox is the worst case scenario for building applications, Crescent Head is a beach village and our chosen lifestyle is sunshine and outdoor activities, the summer equinox is also an important factor in this case as residents of number will be effected. The proposed 17 metre tall block of flats will remove the direct sunshine from our property (predominately units 1-2-3) minimising the joy of our chosen life styles, morning light into the living areas including main bedrooms will be remarkably reduced due to shadowing of the building in the summer months. This also will affect our gardens and lawns removing morning sunshine.

Loss of amenities

Views Our view does not include any major icons, nor do we have water views, at present we have a wonderfully pleasant view of the essence of Crescent Head with the hill and all the homes, which have been built to keep the natural outlook with an abundance of trees. An 11 metre building, in keeping with zoning compliance, will remove that view, but the proposed 17 metre building will eliminate even the sky from our second story bedroom view leaving us with the balconies of a block of flats which are reminiscent of inner city Sydney, not of a regional coastal village. I am unsur

giving them essentially our bedroom and balcony along with 3 others, our garage doors and a pool and driveway denying us, as well, as the future residents of number 7 Killuke Cres the lovely views we have enjoyed all this time.

Audible impact During the height of the holiday seasons here at Crescent Head the population increases dramatically but in this area number we have always enjoyed very little disruption, the increase in the volume of residents in such close proximity will, of course, greatly affect the noise levels impacting all, the proposed 17 metres, 4 stories containing 15 units- 9 of these whose balconies which face our bedroom front on will effect our quality of sleep and also impact on our quiet neighbourhood when any of these units have any kind of gathering. As stated previously, sunshine and outdoors is part of Crescent Head lifestyle and of course the balconies of this proposed 17 metre block of flats will access theirs to enjoy the same therefore impacting audibly. To inflict this kind of probable stress and tension to neighbours displays a blatant lack of regard by the developers.

Visual impact of this proposed block of flats would certainly change the streetscape and neighbourhood character of the area where we live. The proposed 17 metre tall block of flats will be visible as you enter the village past Crescent Head Primary School on Pacific Drive and from almost all lines of sight. The newest addition to Crescent Head (see attached picture #2) is a block of townhouses which keeps to the character of a beach village and does not impact the streetscape unlike the proposed development which, as stated previously, is very reminiscent of inner city Sydney (see attached pictures #3 + provided street view plans #4) which adversely impacts the area as we, as well as many others in this village, relocated to Crescent Head from Sydney and other metropolitan areas to escape urbanisation and warehousing of families forsaking the picturesque for the dollar. Balconies, being a beach village, the practice of having towels and wetsuits and possibly washing hanging over each balcony will be a eyesore as I'm sure some of these flats with be utilised as holiday letting and ensuring any compliance for restricting this practice would be an on going problem affecting our easy going existence and lifestyle we have nurtured by living here. The use the balconies as a storage area again would be an eyesore.

Increase of vehicles using Killuke Crescent. The proposed development of 7 Killuke Crescent provides car spaces for 18 vehicles and I have concerns this large increase of vehicles near a primary school exit and a safe drop off and pick up point, local and holiday children accessing the public pool and recreation/ sport fields increases risks relating to child/vehicle safety. There are several frail aged citizens who walk and/or use mobility vehicles in and on Killuke Gres and this increase put our local elderly at an increased risk as well. Visitor car parking increases the number of cars parked on the street as the 2 or 3 provided cark parks for visitors that developers provide is never adequate for the volume of residents, at peak holiday time visitors to our village and to the proposed development will increase and with it increase our concerns

Devaluation of our property will be an actual problem affecting any possible real estate transactions, all conversations regarding the proposed development of a 17 metre block of flats has a similar comment "who would want to live next door to that" and "You could never sell your place now, who would buy it with that monstrosity next door". We purchased our beautiful townhouse to retire in and as an investment for our future for if and when the time comes to move to a nursing home, I firmly believe our future will be compromised by this proposed 17 metre block of flats and the devaluation of our property as a result of it being approved.

Objective of the standard- building height control clause 4.3 a) Preserve the existing character in residential and business areas

within Kempsey local government area. b) Nominates heights that will provide a transition in built form and

land use intensity within the area covered by this plan. c) To protect the amenity of existing and future dwellings from adverse

impacts on privacy and solar access upon the urban streetscape.

Conclusion We object to the proposed development of the property 7 Killuke Crescent, Crescent Head and ask that our objection be heard on the grounds specified and ask that Kempsey council stand firm on the height limits and take into account our concerns in all seriousness. Crescent Head is one of the very few beach villages left which has maintained it's unique simple village feel and not become an overdeveloped, overcommercialised soulless collection of buildings. Crescent Head is a community where neighbours know each other and enjoy everything our small village has to offer whilst honouring it's history and wanting to progress successfully and tastefully in keeping with what we have maintained as a living village and a wonderful holiday destination. It is our love of this village that makes us fervently object to this proposed 17 metre, 4 storey, 15 flats development so strenuously.

If at any stage there is a town meeting regarding this building we would like to be informed please.

Yows sincerely

*hi 5000

Front setback

(Req.)

(Red!)

3700 6215

iLoo vtAs

Unit 5, 10, 15

(E) I3500

csV

Unit' 4, 9, 14

31115 1 100 4400

Unit 3, 8, 13

Rent White painted render "Lexicon Full"

buckarsimple. doers of stuff

Ren2 Dark Grey Painted Render "Charcoal Fusion"

Long Wall articulation in awl KDCP Clause 5.2.3 Caretaker store Service

Ren3 Medium Grey Textured Render "Milton Moon*

4600

Rear setback

TieiP - Height Limit 11 meters

— (Red)

Approved building

Kt

— Fence shown dashed

Clothes Drying

itoot Ridge 17.000 WS Root 16.500 1,

Level 3 13.200

Level 2 9.900

01

Level 1 6.600

Ground Level 3.600

Till Scr1 While tiles with light grey grout Perforated powder-coaled aluminium screen

P11-1 0 - - 1 r i - - . efi—, 0 - 1 . '4' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' cy, A s Indicated es Bs The c o p r i g h t o f this 600011rorn th ains e property of

buckdsimplo. This design is 1101 10 b e used, copied or reproduced without the aulhonly of buck&siinple. Do not scale Iron, drawings. Confirm dimensions o n site prior to the commencement o f works. w h e r e a discrepancy arWes, seek direction prior to proceeding with the works. This drawing is only l o b e used by the staled Chant In the stated location lor the purpose it was Cloaked. Do not use this drawl for construction unless des tuned

c u r i c a , t : i n f o g l a u c k a n d s i f r o i e . cur, h i n t : El6 l u e GiPt r.2b

www.buckandsimple.com

Development Application

i h a . . ri,iiii.,.. 4a...Alf , 5...2,,,,,4,,.,0„ 15.10.617 I lx.sayorvi 40,41. .1. . ...C. 4 Folgoll.. la OA A D5.211111

Baker Drive

7 M i l k s Cres, Crescent Head NSW 2440 J u n e 2017 '

29.012018

Bel lowing Pry Ltd

Elevat ion • North East

1-1"1 7.5 C ) i ' r C / V r l D4:1,

- K e e . PS Sireies-lr

u

Q images of exterior unit blocks sydney +

Au Vistaprint... Wedding C... www.plan... CS4 imam

I Al3my

Jney Apartment Living Stock Photos & Sydney Apartment Living ... l e r r a p a r t m e n t un i t bu i ld ing in No r th R y d e Sychey,Aust ra l la - S t o c k Image

es n a y be subject to copyright. Find out more

ATVS IMAGES

414114N'›s'44.,,„

4 3 -E.:)( A rv Pt.--Gx or

D

SEE M.

111.r. - I-1 1

_

buck&simple. doers of stuff

EXAvvHDcz5:" -,7-1A. s DE,v6u0PAA e:604118t-e-IS

1 Killuke Crescent Perspective

2 Baker Drive Approach Perspective

Ye. 1 4 n 4 : 1 4 . 0.14 ' ' ' ' ' c ‘

BB BS The copyright of this design remains lie property at buck&sImple. This design dual lobe used, copied or reproduced without the authority of buck&simple. 00 ,101 scale horn drawings. Confirm dimensions on site prior to the commencement of works. Where a discrepancy arises, seek direction prior to proceeding with the works. This drawing is only lobe used by the staled Client In the stated location for the purpose it was created. 00 1101 usu this drawin for construction unless cies' Wed

c:ini ii0t.: tr i toi lauckandsimple . coin Aim : 86 106 604 025

www.buckandsimple.com

Development Application

i nwukthwwwti wuwor 2 ,422„,„„„„,, 4 04w14.444114444.1441.1. .". 4 18.441.414,1, OA 0451138

Baker Drive

7 Killuke Cres, Crescent Head NOW 2440 June 2017 29,05.2018

Bellowing Ply Ltd

1093 DA951 4 Perspective Views

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Submission re: 2018LD-00025

Page 1 6/07/2018

Ref: 2018LD-00025 1/7/2018 I oppose the proposed 15 unit development at 7 Killuke Crescent, Crescent Head 2018LD-00025. The proposed building contravenes the Kempsey Development Control Plan 2013 (KDCP2013) and the aims of the Kempsey Local Environmental Plan 2013 (KLEP2013) Some examples of how the requirements of these plans are not met include; The height of the building at 17 metres is 6 metres higher than the 11 metres as legislated for in the KLEP 2013 Height of Buildings Map - Sheet HOB_012B and the scale, height and length of a building and walls are NOT appropriate to the local residential character, (DCP DO2).

The height and bulk of the proposed development is not in character with existing development. At 4 storeys high, the proposed development is inconsistent with the existing development in Crescent Head and with that of the surrounding neighbourhood. Only 2 of the 11 sites within this zone have 3 storey buildings and these are built into the hill. The proposed development is inappropriate given that the site is on a corner, on a flat expanse and opposite cleared public land. It will rise out of country which is naturally tea tree flats or swampland. The area within this zone is viewed from many places in Crescent Head and the visual impact on residents and tourists should be considered. There is conflict with adjacent land uses and the density of the development is NOT “compatible with the desired natural character of the neighbourhood and locality” (Kempsey DCP DO2). The density of the development is inappropriate for the location near the school, pre-school and sporting fields. The scale and design of the development will result in heavier traffic and riskier driving behaviours in an area where there is already intense pedestrian use by infants and children and vehicle drop offs and pickups at school times. There will need to be an additional school zone across Killuke Cres which removes even more onstreet parking options. The problems will be exacerbated if, as it seems likely, the units are used for holiday rentals. The impact on the on street parking will present further hazards for pedestrians. Even if there is parking for each unit, most households now have at least 2 if not more vehicles, especially if the units are used for holiday rentals. It is possible that there could be an additional 15 -30 extra cars regularly parked on Killuke Crescent and Baker Drive and probably spilling into the swimming pool/sports field carpark. Council needs to remain mindful that there is another undeveloped block on Killuke Crescent and if this inappropriate development is allowed, the precedent could see a similar high-rise development creating impossible traffic demands on this area around the school and pre-school. Section 3.5.2 states that “A Character Analysis” may be required for development located within Crescent Head and that the character analysis needs to demonstrate that the design of the development has considered and responded to the landscape, streetscape and building elements that contribute to the character of the area. Has there been a character analysis undertaken for this DA? The proposed building does not consider, respect or reflect the landscape, streetscape and building elements that contribute to the character of Crescent Head.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Submission re: 2018LD-00025

Page 2 6/07/2018

If this development is allowed, there will be a significant loss of amenity to adjacent dwellings and land (DCP DO2) for the community in general and particularly for myself and other neighbouring properties. There will be also be a loss of privacy for myself and other neighbouring properties (ref DCP DO6 ) My property at will have units looking in on my private garden and bedroom and living areas. It is impossible to screen these areas from a 4 story building and this will significantly affect the enjoyment of my home. These areas of my house will be overshadowed particularly on winter afternoons. (ref DCP DO2) and neighbouring properties to the development will have their current and potential solar access to north-facing solar collectors compromised (ref DCP DO5). The proposed development will also adversely affect my enjoyment of the public open space of the park and athletic fields. The amenity and enjoyment of this public area will be affected because of the height, scale and invasive nature of the proposed development. It is my understanding that the applicants must provide written justification and demonstrate how the proposal achieves the desired outcomes as articulated in the DCP despite not achieving the development requirement as articulated in the planning instruments used by Kempsey Council. If approved, council should also provide justification as to why a building that doesn’t meet requirements was passed. By nature of its density, height, scale and location the proposed development is unacceptable to local residents and out of keeping with the seaside village atmosphere which is enjoyed by residents and visitors alike. I own land opposite the building and know my enjoyment of that land will be detrimentally affected if the proposed development is carried. I urge council to reject this proposal and to only consider designs for this site that meet planning requirements and are consistent with the other developments in the area. The construction certificate issued in 2007 should no longer apply as there has not been substantial work commenced. Any drainage work already in place was undertaken to retain the certificate but in reality should not impact on future building. In 2007, my submission highlighted the issues with the flood plain. If possible, I would like to be informed when this matter is before Kempsey Council and would welcome the opportunity to address the meeting. I can be contacted by email

Yours sincerely

________________________________________________________________________________________________Submission re: 2018LD-00025

Page 1 11/07/2018

Ref: 2018LD-00025 10/7/2018 I wish to add to my submission lodged on 2/7/18 (via email) as it was only after that date that I received a copy of the “Statement of Environmental Effects” for the proposed development. All points made in my previous submission (copied below) still apply however I also wish to address the following claims made in the aforementioned “Statement of Environmental Effects”. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the existing DA on the basis of “the rationalised

layout and raised level of the approved carpark. Stating that “The approved DA carpark is located in a

subterranean basement that covers a majority of the site … Due to potential flood risk and subsequent

damage to property and assets, the proposed design of the carpark has been elevated … The proposed

adjustment to the car park level has alleviated the flooding concern, however, the flow-on effect results in an

overall increase to the building height..” And states “As there is a potential flood issue on the subject site,

elevating the basement carpark to natural ground level is necessary to ensure safety and avoid potential

damage to property and assets”

I wish to bring to council’s attention that in my objection to the Development Application 2004/LD- 00075 dated 10th March 2004, I wrote “Local knowledge indicates that the carpark will be below the water table. How will this be managed? Where will the water from the underground carpark go to? What will prevent oil and diesel entering the sewerage or stormwater system from the underground carpark?” I also raised concerns when I addressed the council meeting on 14th December 2004.

I now ask why wasn’t the Kempsey Shire Council’s planning Department (and the developer) concerned about these risks in 2004 yet now claim that there is a reason to breach the height restrictions as stated in the LEP and DCP in order to overcome these real and significant risks.

The “Statement of Environmental Effects states that “The effect on the cost of construction [of the

underground carpark] is immense”. It is not fair or reasonable to expect that neighbouring properties and the broader Crescent Head community suffer the effects of a building that is too high, too dense and out of keeping with the character of Crescent Head in order to minimise the “immense” cost of construction especially as the difficulties associated with this design was clear to many prior to the approval of the original design.

The “Statement of Environmental Effects” also raises “ongoing maintenance” as a reason for raising the building to allow for the above ground carpark stating that “The “tanking” of a subterranean

basement comes with added construction difficulty with complex structural and monetary repercussions if

any of the design fails in the future. The subterranean floor will need to be hydraulically pumped in the event

of floodwater penetrating the carpark”. This was a concern I also raised in the aforementioned submission against the original DA. In 2004, I asked “It is unclear whether the drainage demands generated by the development and in particular the underground carpark have been adequately addressed. Will the carpark drain? Will continuous pumping be required?” If I, as someone with no engineering or building knowledge could identify these risks and difficulties, it must be asked why was the Council’s planning department unable or unwilling to recognise these risks and decline the DA on this basis in 2004? It implies either incompetence, vested interests or worse.

The “Statement of Environmental Effects” states that “The construction of a subterranean carpark

would be more invasive to the environment requiring more material, concrete and chemically manufactured

Crescent Head NSW 2440

________________________________________________________________________________________________Submission re: 2018LD-00025

Page 2 11/07/2018

waterproofing, along with the required removal of fill from site” . Again, this is an issue I raised in 2004 as DCP 22 which was in place at the time stated that “cut and fill is kept to a minimum;” and “The

maximum height/depth of any cut or fill is to be limited to 1.5 metres above or below the natural ground level”

It was clear that the proposed underground carpark in the original DA contravened these requirements yet for reasons unknown was nevertheless approved by both the planning department and the council of the day. The “Statement of Environmental Effects” states “There is an existing landscaping buffer between the

single-storey building on 6 Killuke Crescent and the subject site, minimising the effects of overshadowing

and overlooking”. This is a vast over exaggeration as the only landscaping is minimal and does little to minimise overshadowing or over-looking.

The “Statement of Environmental Effects” recognises that “the single-storey building on 5 Baker

Drive, with private open spaces located on the adjoining boundary, requires a design solution that will

negate any potentially negative effects of overlooking and privacy.” And proposes “Screen planting in the

form of medium size trees to screen off overlooking from proposed openings” The proposed species is Tristaniopsis laurina- Luscious ’Water Gum with an expected mature height of 9m. This is a dubious solution to the over-looking that will be experienced by . The trees will take years to grow to a useful height and then once the height is achieved, the trees will have grown to a width of 5 metres and as the set back is only 4.5 metre space the trees are likely to create further problems for these neighbouring properties because of dropping branches, leaf and flower litter. The planting may well also create significant problems for council in the future as it is my understanding that the proposed planting is over the sewer line.

The “Statement of Environmental Effects” claims “It is reasonable to predict that, in time, this area will

continue to become a higher-density area of Crescent Head”. There is no basis for this claim. Many of the other buildings in that area are not old and therefore are unlikely to be redeveloped anytime soon. In the unlikely event that the whole area is developed to the maximum allowed, that should be to 3 storeys and not the 4 storeys that this building will set a precedent for. I feel that the building height is being changed by stealth and being determined by the developer’s desires rather than by the planning instruments. The “Statement of Environmental Effects” claims that the proposed building “does not result

in any negative impacts to the occupants or neighbouring dwellings.” This is an inaccurate and false claim as I am an owner and resident of a neighbouring dwelling and believe that I will be negatively impacted upon by the proposed building (as outlined in previous submission included below) and in speaking to other owners and residents in the surrounding area and the broader community know that I am not alone in this view.

It is my view that myself, other neighbours and the broader community should not be made to accept or tolerate this building that breaches the planning laws and is too high, too dense and not in keeping with the character of Crescent Head in order to prevent the developer/s from incurring excessive building and on-going costs. The burden of poor planning and research should be borne by the developers - not the community. It is true that the original design with the underground carpark has significant environmental (and other) issues and should never have been approved at the time but a higher building is also inappropriate and should also not be approved. Catering to the greed of developers will set an undesirable and dangerous precedent and I urge council to reject the proposal until at the very least the 4th storey is removed from the design. Below is my previous submission against the current DA sent on 2/7/2018. I acknowledge that I misunderstood the plans and stated that the height of the building is 17 metres rather than 13.4 metres but even at 13.4 metres, the building is 2.4 metres and 1 storey higher than that allowed by the zoning. My 2004 submission should be on your records but can be provided if required. I am

________________________________________________________________________________________________Submission re: 2018LD-00025

Page 3 11/07/2018

also including photos which show the parking demands and a proportion of the children that use Killuke Cres. These photos were all taken on 5/7/18 but are typical of every school day. Although it is not a legal requirement, I believe that Kempsey Council should have taken this development to the broader Crescent Head Community given the scale of the development and the fact that it breaches planning regulations. I plan on attending the relevant council meeting and would welcome the opportunity to address council in regard to this matter Yours sincerely

Children leaving school – Note car parked on verge due to lack of street parking. Also- Imagine a building 2 storeys higher than the 2 storey building to the left of picture

________________________________________________________________________________________________Submission re: 2018LD-00025

Page 4 11/07/2018

Children crossing Killuke Crescent Note - In the afternoon these students are accompanied by a school staff member but in the morning students cross unaccompanied so with increased traffic would require a school crossing zone thereby exacerbating the parking issues.

Parking Killuke Crescent towards pre-school – before school finishes

________________________________________________________________________________________________Submission re: 2018LD-00025

Page 5 11/07/2018

Parking Killuke Crescent – before school finishes. Note vehicle parked on verge.

As submitted 2/7/2018 The proposed building contravenes the Kempsey Development Control Plan 2013 (KDCP2013) and the aims of the Kempsey Local Environmental Plan 2013 (KLEP2013) Some examples of how the requirements of these plans are not met include; The height of the building at 17 metres is 6 metres higher than the 11 metres as legislated for in the KLEP 2013 Height of Buildings Map - Sheet HOB_012B and the scale, height and length of a building and walls are NOT appropriate to the local residential character, (DCP DO2).

The height and bulk of the proposed development is not in character with existing development. At 4 storeys high, the proposed development is inconsistent with the existing development in Crescent Head and with that of the surrounding neighbourhood. Only 2 of the 11 sites within this zone have 3 storey buildings and these are built into the hill. The proposed development is inappropriate given that the site is on a corner, on a flat expanse and opposite cleared public land. It will rise out of country which is naturally tea tree flats or swampland. The area within this zone is viewed from many places in Crescent Head and the visual impact on residents and tourists should be considered. There is conflict with adjacent land uses and the density of the development is NOT “compatible with the desired natural character of the neighbourhood and locality” (Kempsey DCP DO2). The density of the development is inappropriate for the location near the school, pre-school and sporting fields. The scale and design of the development will result in heavier traffic and riskier driving behaviours in an area where there is already intense pedestrian use by infants and children and vehicle drop offs and pickups at school times. There will need to be an additional school zone across Killuke Cres which removes even more onstreet parking options.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I write to reply to the proposed development at 7 Killuke Crescent, Crescent Head Lot 5 DP40088.

Reference Number 2018/LD-00025.

On review of the current application it has been bought to the attention of community that

this proposal is clearly exceeding maximum heights of residential building within this zone. Within

the development plans it clearly shows that the proposed development exceeds the maximum

height of 11 meters as shown on the Heights of Buildings Map Sheet HOB_012B with the forth story

of the proposal beginning at the 11 meters.

This limit is in direct contradiction to the Kempsey Local environment plan (NSW) 2013 (LEP)

which states the objectives are “to protect the amenity of existing and future dwellings from the

adverse impacts on privacy, solar access and on the urban streetscape”, Clause 4.3, page 33. This

forth storey building that is breaching maximum height by 6 meters will have a direct impact of

neighbouring flats and residential homes within both Baker drive and Killuke Crescent. This proposal

shows the first levels towing over the fence line at 6.6 meters and balconies directly looking over

private courtyards of every aspect.

As all properties surrounding this development rely on solar it would be appropriate for the

application to show shadow diagrams for the months of summer as the shadow diagrams have only

be analysed for the month of June. Looking closely this will have a direct and drastic impact on the

adjacent properties of Baker drive with the proposed building casting a larger shadow within these

months. As stated in the LEP it would be advised to protect the existing dwellings from these

adverse impacts of our existing solar panels.

The design of the proposal has not followed the aesthetic of the current neighbourhood as

no other premise exceeds height limits and no other building in this area exceeds three storeys. The

facade is unattractive with the overall design being an eye sore to the coastal feel of the current

streetscape. At this point of time, 3 storey buildings have been set along hill scapes within the

community as to not directly impact neighbouring residents. Currently there are no other

developments of this size, scale and density and this proposal will take away the charm and coastal

feeling of the current community. The proposal has the aesthetic of a new hospital and will look very

disproportionate and invasive to other homes decreasing our property value in this area. As a

matter of keeping of coastal charm and small community feeling it is essential for proposed

developments within high visibility areas such as this one to maintain a coastal appearance.

As stated in the LEP clause 7.9 Essential Services “development consent must not be granted

to development unless the consent authority is satisfied the following services that are essential for

the development are available, (E) vehicular access”. Currently this proposal sits within the Crescent

Head Primary school pick up zone. It would be of great concerns for members of the public and all

parents of children who attended both the Primary and Preschool for the increased density of traffic

along both Baker drive and Killuke Crescent. The current vehicle access for proposed buildings is

adjacent to school pick up and drop off. As parking is a currently a concern for both of these streets

it is to assumed that extra cars and visitors cars will park in the vacant block of the community hall.

This excess in traffic and parking will cause a congestion and increased risk for the residents

and children whom attend the community hall on a regular basis and the current drop off and pick

up zone of the primary and preschool. Baker drive is an already very busy street within the

community as it is the gateway to point plumber road and this additional vehicular access of up to

30 cars and visitors will cause further congestion and danger within this street.

The inclusion of the Barbeque and communal area are positioned directly in front of the

proposed 15 units with balconies on every perimeter. Both of these features pose a huge risk of

increased noise and invasive impacts to privacy to a currently quiet neighbourhood. Both the

communal and barbeque area of this proposal have no screening to protect current residents of the

increased noise these areas will produce. As the building is adjacent to the crescent head rotunda it

would be seen that a BBQ area would be in close proximity and the use of this existing area would

reduce both noise and privacy of the homes situated in Baker drive. Currently both my neighbours

and I are in the process of planning or extending our young families and feel that this apartment has

a high risk to not be owner occupied and be rented to holiday makers who have very little regard to

permanent residents with in the area. Recent developments within the area have currently not been

able to be permanently occupied and are now left empty and are filled only within the holiday

periods.

On the basis of overwhelming community opposition and the above concerns stated it is

requested that consent to the proposed development application number 2018/LD-00035 not be

granted by the Kempsey Shire Council until provision are maintained. The proposed development

needs to adhere to the LEP, including maximum height levels and essential services. This

development will excessively overshadow existing residential homes and will take the coastal charm

from the town. Due to the sheer density and proximity to existing homes, noise should be taken as a

great concern and the communal BBQ area and amount of balconies should be re-evaluated. Over

flow parking and the increased density of traffic should be considered with special consideration to

the proposed application being within the school pickup and drop of zone and community areas

such as sporting fields and community hall. It is very important to residents and visitors alike that

Crescent heads unique character and charm be maintained. A main attraction to growing families

within this community is that it does not feature over-developed blocks such as the one proposed.

We request that you please consider our concerns carefully and utilise your power to

protect residents from the detrimental effects this proposed development carries. If possible I would

like to be informed when this matter is before Kempsey council and would welcome the opportunity

for myself and other concerned residents to address the meeting.

Kind regards,

Crescent Head

2440.

Kempsey Shire Council, Your Ref: 2018LD-00025 I object to the proposed 15 unit development at 7 Killuke Crescent, Crescent Head The proposed building is at odds with the Kempsey Development Control Plan 2013 and the aims of the Kempsey Local Environmental Plan 2013.

• The building is 6 metres higher than the 11 metres permitted in the KLEP 2013 and would clearly dominate the surrounding buildings and parkland. A four story building on the corner where the school children cross the road would create an imposing facade not in keeping with the parkland to the southwest and the village atmosphere generally

• The proximity of the development, with its increased traffic movements, to the school and pre-school with their pick up and drop off zones will produce a more dangerous traffic environment for the children.

Sincerely,

2/7/2018

Dear Sir/Madam,

RE: DA 2018LD-00025 7 KILLUKE CRESCENT, CRESCENT HEAD

I am writing to object and raise concerns re the REVISED DA for the property above.

I understand that in 2005, Council approved for 15 units to be built on the site and now some 18

years later the applicant has submitted a revised DA which seeks to change the basement car park to

ground level and retain the 3 storeys of 15 units so that the height limit exceeds the 11 metres with

a proposed height of 13.4 metres. The reasons for the change reference flood mitigation

management and cost issues with the original approved DA and refers to changes to the SEPP 65

which now require ceiling heights of 2.7m for quality residential properties.

I believe a building of 13.4 metres in the Baker St, Killuke Crescent area-or anywhere in Crescent

Head would:

a) not be non compliant with Council’s stated LEP height of 11 metres

b) would be inconsistent with Council’s Draft Crescent Head Masterplan.

The revised DA is effectively for a 4 storey structure-Car park plus 3 levels of units. It would be a

monolithic structure that would dominate the low rise village environment. Its boxy design would be

out of character with the area on a major tourist and surfing route to the iconic Point Plummer

beaches and Limeburners.

The proposed introduction of vegetation, vertical planting and interplay of light on the proposed

tiles, brass screens, render etc to soften the effect of the boxy monolithic design would not in any

way reduce the deleterious impact on the local amenity of such a large building looming over all

other development in the area.

The revised DA presents solutions for the applicant/ developer to proceed with 15 units but increase

the height but it fails to present alternative design solutions that could meet Council’s requirements

and more effectively reduce the negative impacts on the local area-ie why not a smaller number of

units on that site if the car park must be at ground level?

Council has consulted with the Crescent Head Community and provided a draft Masterplan for the

village. In doing so, Council recognises the iconic nature of this mid north coast small beachside

village. The purpose of CHAMP is to among other things to “provide a framework…….to guard

against inappropriate development practices and safeguard the character and quality of life inherent

in living in Crescent Head.” Council has listened to residents and invested in a way forward. It is

imperative that this revised DA be assessed in line with this Draft CH Management Plan. For example

one of the identified community priorities is to “oppose large development that changes the social

fabric of the village”. Another is to “balance the needs of permanent residents with investors and

holiday makers”. Objective 3 of the Masterplan refers to key planning issues which I believe are

relevant to this revised DA…”Preserving and promoting the character and beachside architecture of

the village” and “encouraging new and appropriate development into the village”.

In my view the revised DA is out of character with Crescent Head village environment as a large scale

monolithic building that would dominate the area. I urge council to refuse the application and

maintain the current height restrictions. The cost of lowering the car park and it outweighing the

sales benefit of the increased floor area of the approved design is an issue for the applicant that

should not be used as a justification for non compliance with the height restrictions. There are other

options such as a smaller number of units in the development thus requiring a smaller car park or

maintaining the original approved DA and constructing as approved.

I thank you for your consideration and look forward to your determination with interest.

Yours sincerely,