Staff Report 4 - Attachment (iii)

Kay Barton

2 Queen St

CUNDLETOWN 2430

6TH March 2015

The General Manager

GTCC

Pulteney St

TAREE 2430

Ref 339/2014/DA67

Princes Street, Cundletown

Dear Sir,

I have only recently become aware of this development and have had little time to peruse it,

however, one thing I would suggest is that the signage be kept to a minimum.

This kind of signage can be pervasive, both day and particularly at night, and can detract from the

overall design of the complex.

Further, it can dominate the landscape beyond the immediate site, locally, an example is the

Chatham North MacDonalds’ sign. This sign dominates the landscape and is easily seen day & night

from parts of Cundletown, Dumaresq Island and along the Manning River. I would guess it can be

seen from points other than my local view.

Our valley’s slogan is “Manning Valley Naturally” and such extreme signage simply is an unnecessary

blight on our environment.

Yours sincerely

Kay Barton

Staff Report 4 - Attachment (iii)

Received by Records on 04/03/2015 Scanned © 11:07:38_ Page 1

2nd March, 2015

The General Manager Greater Taree City Council PO Box 482 TAREE NSW 2430

Reference: 339/2014/DA Address: 67 Princess Street Cundletown NSW 2430 Applicant: A and M Chehab Consent Authority: Greater Tareer City Council

Dear Sir/Madam,

GREATER CITY COUNCH

4 - MAR 2015

RECEIVED REG(

On behalf of myself and my wife and family, I wish to strongly object to the abovementioned Development Application proposed for Lot 682, being 67 Princess Street, Cundletown 2430. In support of our objection we wish to provide the following information.

Background: My wife and I and our two daughters have lived at 31 Arkana Avenue, Cundletown since 2002. Our home abuts directly onto the boundary of what is currently called the 'Cundle Motor Lodge' and which is situated at 67 Princes Street Cundletown, the proposed site for the above development. Attached is a plan of the proposed development site with our premises marked.

Cundle Motor Lodge: The Cundle Motor Lodge is located on the proposed development site and has now been operating for a great many years. Because of its layout, all traffic using the Motor Lodge or its attached Restuarant is too and from the norhtern side of the buildings. This means that there has been not noise impact to us in the time we have lived in our home in Arkana Avenue. As well as there not having been a traffic noise issue, there has not been any issue of disturbance from patrons using the Motor Lodge, again because of the layout of the buildings.

The proposed development however indicates a multi-story motel, a 24 hour service station and three fast food outlets which will be able to be seen directly from our premises. Any loading dock servicing the motel and drive through lanes would create a regular flow of vehicle and pedestrian traffic entering and exiting the facilities. I certainly now have grave concerns that no noise attenution works have been proposed for the development site. The plans

TRIM Record No 15/11480 Staff Report 4 - Attachment (iii)

highlight simply a barrier consisting of a row of trees between our back fence and the proposed development. This would surely only provide minimal reduction in noise disturbance and this will definitely have an adverse effect on our homelife and livelihood.

If Council were to approve the development application in its current form, there would certainly be further complaints regarding noise to Council, and possibly even to NSW Police. The erection of a solid barrier of suitable height would be a much better way of protecting the quality of life for those families who are in the unfortunate position of having the planned development thrust upon them.

Potential devaluation of our residential property: My wife and I hold grave fears that the proposed development, should it go ahead as now planned, will definitely have a negative impact on the value of our home, and this has been confirmed by estate agents in the area.

Health Issues: In adddition to the the concerns I have raised already, since 2006 my wife has undergone two lots of brain surgery for a tumour which has never been able to be completely removed. She has been left physically disabled with her walking down the left side. The back verandah of our home is the only area where she is able to sit and relax, just to be able get somewhere out in the fresh air. If there is a multi-story motel, a 24 hour service station and food outlets right on the other side of our back fence, with possibly only a few trees to give her any privacy (if any) or protection from noise and fumes, what is to be the quality of her life and her access to fresh air and sunshine. I ask that you please consider this issue when deciding on what sort of barrier the Coucil insists that the developer be made to erect.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Jobson (also on behalf of Deborah Jobson) 31 Arkana Avenue Cundletown NSw 2430

r i t


Received by Records on 04/02/2015 Scanned @ 11:15:37 _

Page 1

SERVICE STAMM SWIM ELEVATION WITH BEVATION

elcoire"r4Mii,naMmi."".67.41.

_ • rIuIlIuJIttI .11u1111 a n - • v

• !"•:!'4.0.:1•0;m40:".iloiloSIA

PrtirlArninittletnil

Z5;f:Svakler

T R I M M O . 4 1 . • uno

SUMMON


Received by Records on 04/02/2015 Scanned Q 11:13:01 Page 1

NEW PROPOSED \ ROUND ABOUT '

frikarthl

OA MAMMON


339/2014/DA

PROPOSED 3 STOREY MOTEL AND SERVICE CENTRE DEVELOPMENT AT 67 PRINCES ST, CUNDLETOWN

Impact of proposed development on No. 31 Arkana Ave:

1. Intrusion to privacy of back yard from 1st and 2nd floor motel rooms

2. Traffic noise from all vehicles entering the underground carpark (entry point to underground carpark is adjacent to, and 20 metres from, the back fence). The constant flow of traffic into this carpark will be a constant source of annoyance and be highly disruptive to our daily lives.

3. Traffic noise from all vehicles exiting the underground carpark (exit point directs all traffic past, and within 16 metres from, the back fence. Again, the constant flow of traffic into this carpark will be a constant source of annoyance and be highly disruptive to our daily lives.

4. Lighting from service centre shining into back yard and residence.

5. Substantial proportion of the traffic, generated by the development, exits the site past the rear of Arkana Ave homes.

6. Traffic lane serving the Motel foyer will pass 6 metres from the back fence.

7. Motel loading dock immediately adjacent to, and only 10.6 metres from, the back fence. Reversing vehicle beepers from delivery vehicles will be a constant source of annoyance and be highly disruptive to our daily lives.

8. It is interesting to note that the Internal Southern Elevation 2 (which is actually an internal western elevation, not a southern elevation), or any elevation, does not show a western elevation from the view of the residents of Arkana Ave. It would be reasonable to believe that this was done purposely to hide the fact that the western wall of the motel will rise 9 metres at only 10.5 metres from the western boundary. We request that a detailed western elevation be shown which truly reflects what the development will look like from the view of the Arkana Ave residents.

A landscaped mound (minimum 1.2 metres high and 5 metres wide) plus a masonary sound wall (minimum 2.3 metres high) on top of this mound (total height of 3.5 metres), and located along the green buffer along the western boundary of the subject may alleviate a substantial number of the development site may alleviate bove-mentioned issues.


4111

Vilifit.11743551Cirr

11111'4 h'i" niirf 111111 MIA ; M i . : : : Al'a4e1 )132 0.1532

rnotior MIN inii

k r i k I 1_I

tl


Received by Records on 04/03/2015 Scanned @ 10:51:59 _

Page 1

27 February 201 5

General Manager Greater Taree City Council PO Box 482 TAREE NSW 2430

Reference: 339/2014/DA Address 67 Princes Street, Cundletown NSW 2430

Applicant A and M Chehab

Consent Authority Greater Taree City Council

Dear Sir/Madam,

wish to object to Development Application Ref: 339/2014/DA proposed for Lot 682, 67 Princes Street, Cundletown NSW 2430. In support of this objection the following information is advanced. Background:

My wife and I currently reside at 29 Arkana Avenue, Cundletown, and have lived at this address over the past 36 years. Our home directly abuts the boundary of 'Cundle Motor Lodge', situated at 67 Princes Street, Cundletown, which is the proposed site for the development. I have attached a plan of the proposed development plans and have highlighted the location of our premises for your information (see Annexure 1).

Cundle Motor Lodge:

"Cundle Motor Lodge is located on the proposed development site and was erected shortly after our home was constructed in 1978. The Motel currently provides 28 unit style accommodation with a fully licensed restaurant.

Over the past 36 years, the general trading practices of "Cundle Motor Lodge has not impacted negatively in respect to undue disturbance from patrons staying or visiting the Motel. The general amenity has been satisfactorily maintained and myself and my neighbours developed an amicable relationship with past and present management.

The layout of "Cundle Motor Lodge" allows patrons to park their vehicles, attend the restaurant or stay in the accommodations units on the northern side of the Motel. This provided a buffer in respect to pedestrian and vehicular noise impacting on ours and neighbouring homes situated on the southern side of the Motel.


The proposed development identifies a multi-story motel, 24 hour petrol station, and three fast food outlets directly behind our premises. A loading dock servicing the motel and drive through lanes will create a constant flow of vehicle and pedestrian traffic entering and exiting the facilities. After reviewing the development plans, I now hold grave concerns regarding the lack of noise attenuation works proposed on the development site.

In addition, I note the plans highlight a barrier consisting of a row of trees between our property and the motel. In my opinion, this will provide minimal resistance to noise disturbance that will have an adverse effect our home and livelihood. Should Council approve the development application in its current format, the potential for future disturbance complaints to Council and NSW Police is likely to occur. This would place an unwarranted burden on regulatory authorities required to deal with disturbance complaints. Nevertheless, should a solid barrier of suitable height be proposed by the developer reduce the impact of disturbance, I would be open to reconsider my expressed view regarding this matter.

Potential devaluation of residential property:

Having reviewed the proposed development application (the DA), I hold grave fears regarding the negative impact this would have on the value of my property.

Should the development be approved, it is inevitable that our home and neighbouring residential properties will suffer significant devaluation. This will also create a negative effect to future potential property sales at current value rates.

Since becoming aware of the proposed development, I have conversed with a number of local real estate agents in Taree who also share my opinion.

Taree Service Centre:

The "Taree Service Centre is located approximately 8km's south of Cundletown and is adjacent to the Taree Bypass on the Pacific Highway. An aerial photograph of the location of "Taree Service Centre" and the proposed location of the development at Cundletown is depicted below.


PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE

TAREE SERVICE CENTRE LOCATION

The 24 hour "Taree Service Centre near Purfleet provides local residents and north bound travellers ample opportunity to utilise the Centre's many facilities. Further, there are also numerous fuel stops and facilities in Taree's CBD for travellers to utilise should they decide not to bypass Taree.

In addition, Cundletown is currently serviced by two petrol stations located at the Dawson River Caravan Park and in Main Street, Cundletown. Should the development be approved, this will create a decline in business and place increased pressure for those operators to maintain viable businesses.

Fast Food Outlets:

The fast food restaurants located at the "Taree Service Centre and north of Taree's CBD on the approach to Cundletown, questions the validity of why additional fast food restaurants are necessary at Cundletown. I question the justification of maintaining two major 24 hour service centres with fast food restaurants 8km apart. There are already two MacDonald restaurants, a KFC and other fast food outlets servicing travellers and the local community in Taree and Cundletown.

In a country currently dealing with morbid rates of obesity, I am concerned that neighbouring school students at Bishop Tyrrell College and local residents will be subjected to 'in your face' fast food options rather than adopting healthier eating habits. Surely the addition of extra fast food facilities at the proposed development site will only add to this ever increasing problem.


Entry and egress:

There is no doubt that should the development be approved there will be significant increased traffic flow entering and exiting the facilities. This will create additional safety concerns regarding pedestrians and place further congestion in the vicinity of Bishop Tyrrell Anglican College.

Restaurant Liquor Licence:

I am aware that the current restaurant located on the proposed development site has an On-Premise 'Restaurant' liquor licence with the authority to trade beyond midnight. Although the licence owner has the ability to place the licence in a dormant capacity during construction. I am concerned that the liquor licence may be extended and eventually trade as a "pseudo hotel" outside the primary purpose of a restaurant. This has the potential for increased risks associated with alcohol related crime, noise disturbance and places unnecessary strain on police

resources.

Conclusion:

Having regard to the above, I trust Council will consider the issues I have raised and in this submission and decline the application in favour of maintaining Cundletown's reputation of being a quiet and well respected community.

Yours sincerely,

Allan Gallagher 29 Arkana Ave, Cundletown NSW 2430. Ph: 65 539 527


Ailigiwai till `f

A u ITYILL NES(

er:griv lirlit,wf lisTrA


I


339/2014/DA

PROPOSED 3 STOREY MOTEL AND SERVICE CENTRE DEVELOPMENT AT 67 PRINCES ST, CUNDLETOWN

mpact of proposed development on No.29 Arkana Ave:

Intrusion to privacy of back yard from 1st and 2nd floor motel rooms

2. Traffic noise from all vehicles entering the underground carpark (entry point to underground carpark is adjacent to, and 20 metres from, the back fence). The constant flow of traffic into this carpark will be a constant source of annoyance and be highly disruptive to our daily lives.

3. Traffic noise from all vehicles exiting the underground carpark (exit point directs all traffic past, and within 16 metres from, the back fence. Again, the constant flow of traffic into this carpark will be a constant source of annoyance and be highly disruptive to our daily lives.

4. Lighting from service centre shining into back yard and residence.

5. Substantial proportion of the traffic, generated by the development, exits the site past the rear of Arkana Ave homes.

6. Traffic lane serving the Motel foyer will pass 6 metres from the back fence.

7. Motel loading dock immediately adjacent to, and only 10.6 metres from, the back fence. Reversing vehicle beepers from delivery vehicles will be a constant source of annoyance and be highly disruptive to our daily lives.

8. It is interesting to note that the Internal Southern Elevation 2 (which is actually an internal western elevation, not a southern elevation), or any elevation, does not show a western elevation from the view of the residents of Arkana Ave. It would be reasonable to believe that this was done purposely to hide the fact that the western wall of the motel will rise 9 metres at only 10.5 metres from the western boundary. We request that a detailed western elevation be shown which truly reflects what the development will look like from the view of the Arkana Ave residents.

A landscaped mound (minimum 1.2 metres high and 5 metres wide) plus a masonary sound wall (minimum 2.3 metres high) on top of this mound (total height of 3.5 metres), and located along the green buffer' along the western boundary of the subject may alleviate a substantial number of the development site may alleviate bove-mentioned issues.


Received by Records on 03/03/2015 Scanned © 10:06:45_ Page 1

Warren & Judy bole 23 Arkana Avenue, Cundletown NSW 2430

Telephone 6553 9187 Email <[email protected]>

1 March 2015

The General Manager Greater Taree City Council PO Box 482 TAREE NSW 2430

Dear Sir Reference - 339/2014/DA

Development Proposal —67 Princes Street, Cundletown 2430 Applicant — A and M Chehab

Prior to purchasing our residence in 23 Arkana Avenue, Cundletown late 1990 we went into great detail to ascertain the quietness of the area, the then proposed positioning of the Pacific Highway and the ability for us to live in a tranquil retirement area.

Cundletown currently has all of the necessary business centres, eg post office, butcher, general store, newsagency, petrol stations, etc on a small scale but relative to a village and to be suddenly impacted with the proposed development, which is to be squashed into such a small space, affecting those residents on the north eastern side of the township.

Points Raised Roads and Roundabout According to the plans submitted, access is to be created to this development via a new by-pass and roundabout which to this day does not exist. Within the application a paragraph is included which states — "The delivery o f the Cundletown Bypass would not be required solely as a result of the subject development and therefore it is not considered that the strategic planning for this connection is to be the responsibility o f the applicant In the event that Council are unable to provide the above information to allow further development of the proposal to proceed, then it should be considered reasonable that Council permit some level o f access to Princes Street to enable a level o f certainty for future development o f the site." There is no certainty that the Brimbin proposal will eventuate, and even if it does, it may take many years before it is at the stage of requiring the roadway upgrade.

Does this mean we, the ratepayer or taxpayer, is responsible for the costs of this roadway etc? I think not, if the development is approved then the developer pays the cost of the by-pass section and roundabout.


Should the by-pass not be approved for construction, access via Princes Street should not be granted under any circumstances, due to the narrowness of the street, the Anglican College traffic congestion at certain times of the day, and general safety.

In stating that there are few pedestrians in the Princes Street area, quite obviously they did not take into account school children going to sporting facilities on their sport days, eg to tennis courts, cricket grounds, athletics, etc. Lastly I have quite a few students walk past my residence at the close of the school day, all of whom would have had to cross Princes Street.

It is also noted that no parking signs are to be placed on the proposed roadway and Princes Street, to deter vehicles parking. How is a truck driver to get food should he wish to as there are no parking spaces for trucks in the vicinity of the food outlets?

Hotel/Motel From the plans a height of 24.1 metres is shown for this building (3 levels plus advertising signs). Cundletown, as stated above is a small village, and this level of building is way beyond what should be allowed. What are the height rules?

While it is the plan to provide trees to around the boundary of the building, one must ask how long it takes for the trees to grow and to what height, will these trees have to overhang onto residents' property?

Are advertising signs which are to be placed on the roof of the motel going to be illuminated and so glowing into residents properties?

Sewage Waste Water Reticulation Has any report been undertaken to ascertain the impact on this main laid down across the back of the reserve in Arkana Avenue and through the motel land to farmland, to ensure that it is not broken or in line with proposed underground parking.

Parking On reading Council plans a total of 322 parking spaces were required with a reduction to 232. In other areas of the application different figures are given, which makes commenting of this subject impossible. In fact when looking at the plans, statements etc it quite often refers to the previous development application which was deferred due to it going to be refused.

One article states 169 spaces were required for the fast food outlets. Can the underground spaces be counted as part of this number as one would imagine this underground park would be gated and requiring a pass to enter.

I also request a reasonable height wall, not trees as indicated, be placed across the boundary line backing on to the park reserve behind Arkana Avenue. The reason for this being for prevention of food stuffs, packaging etc blowing onto the reserve.

Conclusion It is very disappointing that this proposal has raised its head again, bearing in mind that the previous application was to be refused, but withdrawn prior to that decision being made, for various non compliance of regulations but also that it was

2


incompatible with the context and setting of the locality; that the scale, density and aesthetics of the development was significantly of character with the Cundletown built environment; the development would have an unacceptable social impact; and the development was not considered to be in the public interest and this second proposal hasn't changed to any great extent in size.

Yours faithfully

r1/4/04-4, Warren & Judy Hoole

3


Documents

Staff Report 4 - Attachment (iii)