This transcript and its speaker attributions were generated with AI assistance and may contain errors. Speaker names may be corrected in later releases. It is provided for search and accessibility; the official Council minutes remain authoritative.
Welcome And Speakers for Item 2.1.2. And Close Of Meeting
Unknown
And that the applicant's legal representative, who is here today, and I think is going to address the panel, was previously an employee of the firm that I was a partner in, that I'm no longer a partner in, and I haven't had any contact with him for three or four years, and that whole relationship ended that time ago. So I'm just putting that on the record. I'm saying it's not significant. The other members of the panel, I think, have indicated no declarations. Mr Harrison? That's correct. Mr North, Philip North? That's correct. And Ms.
So we've got three matters on the list today, and I think the only item is the first item, which is the pub, which is where the speakers we have for today, and we'll do that one first. Well, we've got an administrative matter, which it doesn't matter, but can I just explain what'll happen is, I've got a list of people who want to speak, and then what we'll have is, when it's your turn to speak, you come up to this lectern here, and you'll see there's a button there, and you press the button. Someone will show you, or I'll show you, and then you've got three minutes. At the end of the three minutes, I'll see where you're at. If you really need another couple of 30 seconds or so to finish up and wind up, that's fine.
Then after that, there's a representative from the applicant, and they will come up and they can address, and we'll ask questions and see where that goes. After that, when it's over, the meeting is then a closed meeting. Everybody leaves, and then we have a private, confidential session, and then after that is the resolution on each of the items, and then that is published on the council's website. Probably early next week or something. So that means we'll now just proceed straight away with the registered speakers that I have, and the first person on the list is Leslie Mason.
So much. My name's Leslie Mason. I'm from 1B Walks Hill Road, so right next door to the proposed development to provide context, and I am speaking against the project.
If you're looking at the site from Bells Line slash Walks Hill Road, we're on the right So there's the house at the top, and there's a house at the back where the ones at the back, where the long driveway.
So in particular, I want to address how this development will be an acoustical catastrophe for Kurrajong Heights as an area, and I'll explain why. Firstly, lack of noise containment. The revised DA now shows that the verandas are no longer enclosed, yet the acoustic report has not been updated at all to reflect this. The initial acoustic report made key assumptions that are no longer valid. It states that there would be no significant noise increase because, one, the balconies were enclosed — no longer the case. Doors and windows would remain closed except for ingress and egress. This is impractical. People are carrying drinks, going back and forth. Acoustic fencing would drown the noise. However, noise travels upwards, and Walks Hill Road goes up, up, up, for those that walk up it, and these fences won't contain the sound as claimed.
Additionally , these fences could in fact worsen stormwater runoff, directing it down our driveway, which already struggles during heavy rain.
The measures to contain the noise are impractical. They're simply unfeasible. For example, signage asking patrons to remain quiet is laughable. There's a no right-hand turn sign from the IGA onto Bell's Line of Road, and it's frequently ignored. So why would people adhere to quiet signage, especially when under the influence of alcohol? Additionally, the plan to limit outdoor tables to four people and have staff enforce this is equally impractical. We've seen during COVID how difficult it is to manage such restrictions. And finally, noise from the mechanical plant equipment has not even been addressed in the report, leaving a significant source of disruption unaccounted for. We also feel the noise levels are underestimated.
The report suggests that the noise emanating from the development would be no louder than a typical living room during the day for people surrounding inside their homes. However, with two to 600 people on site, this is not realistic. Even without live music, we're talking about people talking, cars arriving and leaving, plus mechanical plant, and this will create far more noise than the report suggests. It's pure logic that this will be disruptive not just to immediate neighbours, but to the broader community. This will give us health and wellbeing risk. A phrase used throughout the acoustic report is that this level of noise is not significant to health and wellbeing. However, as a reference, an increase of just 10 decibels represents a tenfold increase in noise.
That means 48 decibels is 10 times louder than 38 decibels. By this estimate, Kurrajong Heights would experience noise levels 10 times louder.
Just a few moments, if that's okay. I just want to say about the noise that the findings and the reference numbers used in the report do not consider rural areas. And that is indicative. There's a government report from the federal government, the health effects of environmental noise, and it states that there's no research on what noise is acceptable in rural areas. Okay. On a personal note, and this will be my last point, aside from privacy of all the surrounding neighbours , our property was excluded from the acoustic report, even though we are directly neighbouring. And also when the original DA was put in, our property was excluded from the sunlight report. I feel this is incredibly unfair, and how can that even be acceptable?
And in closing, we purchased our home in 2021. Before we purchased, we did our due diligence and looked at the Hawkesbury Council development rules, which includes the local environmental plan, and it shows our property and 27 Douglas Road as part of that. So we expected future development on that block to actually be in line with what was on the council website, and it doesn't feel that that's being upheld. I urge you to reject the development. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is Christopher Hallam. I have 50 years' experience as a professional traffic engineer. And I'm also the primary author of the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, which is the standard used for assessing applications such as this. Looking at the submission by Traffix, who did the traffic report, they model it assuming that it's going to be a club. They seem to think that the game is basically a large gambling room, but as the description in the DA is for a pub, and as certainly on page 47 of Council's report they say it doesn't relate to approvals for poker machines, therefore we must assess it as a pub. Now, normally in the RMS Guide, you try to survey traffic generation based on a similar development.
Well, a club in the city is not a similar development. They basically came up with some sort of rate that it wasn't stated where it came from and used that to estimate traffic generation of the pub as 34 vehicles an hour in the peak hour, then adding four for the accommodation. But it's a pub, so you should survey another similar pub. And we do have one just up the road. The Archibald Hotel, just up the road, is a pub in a similar mode. It's smaller, but to get a feeling for it, I organised surveys of the Archibald Hotel, Friday night, Saturday morning, Saturday night, Sunday morning, in June 2022. Winter could well be a little bit underutilised, but at least it gave a basis. The Archibald has got an internal public floor area of 436 square metres, so compared to the 866 proposed at this proposal, got an expansion factor of about 1.91.
So, first of all, those surveys showed over all of the survey hours, the patrons had 51% car driver. So that gives a bit of a handle on how you can project up patronage levels into parking demand. In terms of the generation levels, Friday evening, 6.15 to 7.15, pro rata with this proposal, 81 vehicles an hour. Saturday lunchtime, 1 to 2 p.m., 150 vehicles an hour. Saturday evening, 5.45 to 6.45, 63 vehicles an hour. Sunday lunchtime, 12.30 to 1.30. 151 vehicles an hour. So these figures are somewhat higher than the 38 vehicles an hour that's been used in the assessment by traffics, and hence everything else they say from there becomes somewhat irrelevant. However, normally you would actually, to do a traffic assessment, you'd need to find out how many cars are going past the site.
There's been no traffic counts whatsoever in the material that's been provided for the council to consider it. So how do you assess it? Can I have a bit more time? Just, I mean, just on that one, well, maybe if I could just quickly touch on parking. Again, same deal. There was a parking report that was looking at so-called 85th percentile demands, but hey, let's just look at the DCP, see what it says. And the DCP itself, that's certainly the starting point in this, and again that depends on staff numbers, but it's at least 102 spaces. But I think the 12 employees is about half the rate that the Archibald Hotel currently use, so it could well be higher. But that at least is a minimum starting point.
Or we could look at surveys that we did at the Archibald. Again, pro rata, patron plus staff, 134 cars, Saturday lunch and also Sunday lunch, same numbers. So they're a lot higher based on a survey of a similar hotel. Or you could quickly look at if it's limited to 255 patrons at 0.51 percent driver, that's 130 cars plus staff parking plus accommodation. So the car parking proposed is totally inadequate for the actual development that you have before you. Then just briefly touching on site access, if there's been no surveys of traffic on the road, how do we know the impact of cars coming in, turning right into Douglas, for example? Again, the updated traffic report, though, only saw about 4 p.m.
yesterday because it wasn't on DA Tracker. It suggested there'd be no cars coming from the west, but that's inconsistent with my surveys because I organise for direction of cars coming in and out of the Archibald to be recorded. And coming from the west, we had 12 to 30 percent of entry cars coming from the west. So that times you're looking at 150 vehicles an hour. The right turn into Douglas Road becomes a significant issue in terms of do you need a right turn lane? Well, we don't know. There's no counts, no analysis. Similarly, coming out of the driveway into Walks Hill Road, there's no analysis of queuing back from Bels Line of Road. So there's queuing space for two, three cars max. How do we know that that queuing is not going to block the driveway and people will then start going alternate ways out, for example, up Tamar Street or local residential street to get out?
So there is just no analysis of the traffic implications of the development, so you cannot make a decision because you do not know what the traffic impact will be. And finally, parking, it is totally inadequate for the floor space that's proposed. Is there a
There has been, and when we were there in what was June 2022, James, who ran the place, told me that they ceased using it. There just wasn't enough demand for it.
So in real world, in layman's terms, what would you anticipate to be, or how would you characterise the impact on the surrounding locality when this is operating
Okay. Well, in— Okay. In terms of car parking, I think it will overflow onto Oxhill Road. It will overflow onto the front of Lockhill House. And for the record, my wife and I used to own Lockhill House next door, so we are quite aware of the situation there. So it will be parked out there. Also the IGA supermarket, they'll go in there. St David's car park down Douglas Road, I think that will get some use too. So basically people will just park wherever they have to. It's just common nature. I think, firstly, people probably look outside Lockhill because, I mean, it's not restricted, so I suppose in theory they can. And then it's easy just to go up Oxhill Road to your find a space, rather than winding your way back through the basement car park coming off Douglas Road.
So parking, well, some people might park on the other side of Bell's Line of Road. It's not particularly safe to then cross over as a pedestrian. So, I don't, that would be an undesirable impact for sure. Traffic-wise, well, two intersections. Certainly the revised plan only have ingress via Douglas, so no egress. Now, that was simply because if you're turning right out of Douglas, you've got a sight distance restriction. When the IGA and the restaurant next to it DA went in, and I did the traffic report for the traffic study for the applicant there, the condition that we had was you could not turn right out of Douglas. So that at least the applicant here has seen the problem there and made it a one-way through-flow circulation.
But it still raises the question: the right turn into Douglas from Bells Line, what's the queuing going to be? Is that a safety issue? Again, there's been no analysis of the intersection, what the queuing might be. So that is a safety concern in my mind, a capacity concern too, because Bells Line Road is still a major highway. And if that starts impacting on through capacity through the heights, well, that's an impact. Safety coming out of Warkell Road, if you're being squeezed because of the volume coming out of the driveway, it could well be people taking unacceptable gaps to pull their way out. Again, we don't know the problem there because there's been no counts or analysis. I would have expected the traffic engineer for the development to do counts, to do analysis of the traffic volume, queuing analysis, delays.
Are there any recommendations for improvements that seem reasonable?
The 81 vehicles an hour, that included a component of four vehicles an hour for the hotel accommodation. So, 77 plus 4. That peak hour, that was for 6:15 to 7:15 p.m. On the Friday evening at the Archibald, we surveyed 5:30 to 8:30. Okay , Saturday we surveyed covered 12 to 2. The peak generation was between 1 and 2.
150 vehicles an hour. Saturday evening we surveyed 5:30 to 8:30 p.m., and that was 63, and that was in the period 5:45 to 6:45 p.m. Sunday lunch we surveyed 12 till 2, and in the hours of 12:30 to 1:30, peak was 151 vehicles an hour
I didn't use it. It was too old to go back to. It also was pre that development happening, so one would then have to make an adjustment for that. I mean, on that, I mean, that wasn't a... It wasn't a big development. I did see , I think my estimates of traffic generation on the Friday evening into that was something like 14, 15 vehicles an hour. So it's somewhat less than what we're looking at here.
Thank you. Yeah, we've all concurred and there'll be no duplication. Before you start my three minutes, we've discussed the requirement for some deferment in this hearing on the basis that documents that were promised in the original DA revision, documents that were provided to the planning panel, were not provided in time for us to consult. Chris did his traffic report on documents that were picked up last night. The document that you should have in front of you, which is the document that we— yeah, that one — which we conferred with our community on to prepare. I completed that on Sunday, and I checked both sites on Sunday, and none of the documentations were on it. And in fact, if you look at page two or three in it, I actually listed the ones that were missing.
So from a documentation point of view, we have a concern. A number of people were here who only just received a notice of this meeting. Addressed to the wrong postcode, which is not exactly good . And the third point I'd like to make is that when we did the opposition to the demolition of the historic guesthouse, Alambi, we conferred very closely with council staff, and council worked in a most professional way with us. We had an opportunity to review, we made points, they made points, and we took them on board, and it was very good communication. We've had no opportunity at all in relation to this development to confer with council staff.
The acoustic report has not been updated, as Leslie mentioned. I looked at the environmental report; it hasn't been updated. It hadn't been changed. The traffic was completely new.
We had A21. The plans used under assessment, I think they were predominantly what was put on the notice for the planning panel. I mean, looking at here, we've got an updated traffic report. The problem is, in doing the exercise
Okay. I'd like to start on the basis of the size of the development. We're being asked to believe that this is a 255-person development, and the question quite fundamentally is, if you want to create a 255-person development, please design it, because this is a building designed on our calculations using one person per square metre, a building designed for 583 persons plus associated staff. I looked for corroborating evidence of that number, and in Victoria they use a figure of 0.75 square metres per person. And if we applied that to the entire area, including the beer garden, this development would cater for 1,233 people, which almost exactly matches the size of our community. So on that basis, we'd like it rejected.
We reviewed the requirements of what was, I think, E1 and is now B1 in terms of zoning, and the requirements are the same: to provide a range of retail business and community uses that serve the needs of people who live in, work in and visit the area; to encourage business, retail, community and other non-residential land uses on the ground floor of buildings; and to ensure the scale and type of development is compatible with the character and amenity of the area.
We've already got a pub in Carrajong Heights. It serves the needs of our people. It struggles. It lost a considerable amount of money during COVID. So the idea that our community can support a second pub is just simply laughable. This is not a development that will support the needs of our community, and the 235 objections that we've had against it indicate that our community do not want it. This is not a single-storey building; it's a four-storey building. The bottom storey is the tanks and pumps. We've got a storey of car park, and then two storeys above it. It's an enormous building. So it doesn't comply with a single storey, and the style and character are completely incompatible with the character and amenity of our quiet, peaceful area.
Moving on to pump-out systems, the item 7.4 or 4.1, depending upon which one you look at, of the DCP states the development of unsewered lands may only be permitted for the following developments: single dwelling houses, light industrial and single shops which do not require a water supply greater than that which can be delivered via a normal domestic connection without on-site storage or which are not connected to a reticulated water supply. How on earth can this be allowed to get through?
Of necessity, it's the lowest point on the block. When the waste truck is in place, it has to drive down Douglas Road, and it'll completely block the access of the residents of the bottom end of Douglas Road to their property. It is required to remove 14,100 litres of waste a day. At 200 litres an hour, that'll take two and a half hours. At 14,100 litres a day, if you use a 14,000 litre truck, we'll have a truck blocking that road for two and a half hours every day. And I just cannot see how that is acceptable. And I further researched this morning the size of the truck and the pump-out rates, and I believe them to be accurate. From a truck access point of view, the only way the truck can come in is to drive down Douglas Road.
The only way it can get back out is to reverse onto Bells Line. The sight lines, as Chris said, I think are 73 or 83 metres from around the tree down Bells Line of Road. So it's going to cause accidents. And I make the point that the council garbage truck, for that reason, requires the residents to put the bins on Bells Line, so it doesn't have to drive down Douglas Road. Trucks can't access the one-way system through the car park for their deliveries because the height of the car park is too low. So they're going to have to come in through Walks Hill Road, which is meant to be a one-way system in and out. So you're going to have a conflict there. Patrons will not be able to exit the car park when a truck is manoeuvring into position in the loading bay.
There's only provision for one truck in the loading bay at a time, so that's unmanageable . And trucks need to encroach on the downhill part of Walks Hill Road in order to get in and out because we've got Bells Line, we've got a very, very short space, and then we've got the entrance back into the pub at an angle. So there's no way a truck can get in without going out and facing the oncoming traffic. And the same thing will apply to the exiting. My last point is on water delivery, and the plans show a truck reversing onto a hard stand at the front of the pub beside the exit to the driveway. So it's got a completely blocked Walks Hill Road while it manoeuvres onto that site, and we're talking about a 14,000 litre truck a day coming in.
Wrap it up? I just make the point, when the truck's there, how can you get out of Walks Hill Road without going into the traffic coming, entering off Bells Line? You've got the message. Thank you. Thank you very much, everybody.
That's it, right. Okay, I would like to oppose the development . I'd like to talk about stormwater and drainage. The site comprises virtually 100% hard surfaces, and there's only a small proportion of the rainwater will be harvested. The exit point for all the rainwater looks to be the earth ditch that is currently in Douglas Road, and that's already a source of complaint for residents.
The rainfall figures that were used in the report were somewhat low . Our largest rainfall in recent years was 2,441 millimetres in 2022, and in one day in 2020, we had 315 mils of rain. So that would equate to 1.2 million litres of water coming off the block, and that would, we expect, wash out the drain and make the road impassable.
In addition, there will be additional runoff off Douglas Road as the road is widened and there are curbs and gutters put in. So there's a potential, in a rain event such as we had, that's 250,000 litres, and there's a potential for up to 1.5 million litres of runoff in one day, particularly if the drains get blocked. The drain can't cope. They'll overflow. The houses below the development will likely flood , and the water will go into the fragile environment of Little Wenny Creek, which is in the gully.
I'd like to talk about the safe gas storage. None of the submitted plans have included the location of the gas storage facility that's required for cooking and for potentially water heating. The delivery truck will have to have safe access to the storage tank. Storage tanks need to be sited in a clear area, be protected from accidental damage by either trucks, delivery trucks or by cars, and it must avoid the potential for leaked LPG to drain into an area where it can accumulate and ignite. So the potential for a gas explosion when there could be up to 600 people in the pub needs to be avoided at all cost.
At the moment, it's— I got confused with all the information that we were flooded with, particularly at the last moment, about if it's now a private gaming room or a VIP room, or if it's just a huge gaming room for everybody. Whatever it is, we already have poker machines at the pub and at the Bowling Club, and they rank amongst the lowest revenue in— lowest terms in the state. We don't need any more requirements. I only have one more point that I'd like to make, is there is no public transport on Courageon Heights. We do not have any trains, buses. You can get a taxi from Richmond. There might be an Uber if you're lucky. So everybody who comes to that pub has to drive. There's a very small area where people would be able to walk.
Our experience with the bus , the community bus coming from the Archerboard was it didn't work, and people would just say, Oh, she'll be right. I'll just drive down the road. That was a real worry. Thank you.
Good morning. Thanks for the opportunity to talk to the panel. Andrew Waterhouse is my name. I was born, grew up, work in the Hawkesbury. I'm a Koojung Heights resident. I'm one of the several village elders, if you like, here today who probably should have some sort of heritage order placed on them. I was born in 1951. I live on the ridge that extends directly west up to the hill and underneath the old park called Cherry Park. My family's been there, and I've been there on the same lump of land for about 100 years, getting close to 100 years now. And so I've got a pretty fair idea of how Koojong Heights operates and what the conditions are that make it a decent, workable community and what doesn't.
Koojong Heights is a very special place climatically. And I want to make a point shortly. If I've got— if three minutes is really not enough time to talk about a township or a village that's been established for 200 years or thereabouts. But climatically, environmentally or ecologically and historically, it's a pretty interesting and important place, and rather different to many of the places that I think this planning panel will have had personal experience of. My background: I'm an electronics engineer. I work on international standards committees, amongst other things. I'm a rural fire service volunteer. I'm a deputy captain with the Kurrajong Heights Bushfire Brigade, and I'm also president of that esteemed institution.
And I've done a lot of work with the community over the years in trying to preserve the integrity of the village and the surrounds against various threats, not just bushfires. But there was one point where the RMS, in its wisdom, decided that it might have put a superhighway right through the village in Kurrajong, and we're just now revisiting many of the arguments that came up then about the preservation of the history and the environmental ambience there. I guess, just speaking very— I don't want to go back over any of the points that have already been well made, I think, but from a community perspective, everybody that I've spoken to, those that have come into the area and certainly in the community, when they've learnt about this development, their jaws have dropped , thinking that— and agreeing with my position on this— that it needs to be opposed on the basis that it's completely an inappropriate development.
I think most of the arguments have already been covered on most aspects already. One other point I want to make about the actual situation of the pub casino, the proposed pub casino, is that's the only place in Kurrajong Heights where schoolchildren gather in any significant groups. The schoolchildren in that locale wait for their school bus in the morning, and they alight from the school bus in the afternoon. It's also the case that there's a significant amount of traffic, as you would expect with— with parents bringing their children to that locale. On the question of— is that me? Yeah, yeah, sorry.
Various interesting points have been made. The question of runoff, for example, a very pertinent one that Julie's made. My dad was the meteorological recorder for something like 40 years up there. We used to access our property on Douglas Road. I want to make the point to the committee that Douglas Road is not a road; it's a laneway that's been paved to give some access to the few houses that are down there. It's still a narrow place, but in terms of runoff, we used to get bog coming up that lane when it wasn't sealed. There is a very considerable amount of water that flows into Winnie Creek. In terms of traffic, as a member of the bushfire brigade, as much as anything else, I have witnessed many accidents in the locale, most of them not major, thankfully, coming out of Walks Road because of the suddenness of the traffic appearing from the east.
And also, a really important point, and it's not just related to the question of the highway, but also to the question of light throw, Kurrajong Heights is often, in wet weather, shrouded in mist. At times, it's almost impossible to see your way up Walks Hill Road, for example, because of the density of the mist. And that engenders, as you would expect, major hazards, traffic hazards. Okay, thank you. Any questions? Okay, thank you.
Proposal on the grounds of the heritage of the heights. It has not been addressed in any reasonable way. Both the DA and the council report refer to it in terms of the Part E of the DCP. And having said this, they then write down that you have to follow the— it's a special area and it needs to follow the character and the streetscape and the landscape. And of course they forget to mention the ambience. Having said that, they immediately say this block of land is not heritage, so it doesn't matter. We'll just put it in there anyway. Now it is
Just lost my— oh, damn, excuse me— inappropriate in those context. The history of the site is probably well known to most of you. I have a connection to the site because I'm actually a descendant of Joseph Douglas, and I've known the area for all my life because my grandparents grew up there, and I visited grand aunts, uncles from childhood. So it's always been part of my heritage, and I am absolutely passionate about it. Now,
As a descendant of Douglas, my concern becomes partly Lockheel House. Lockheel is a tiny, small building. It is one of the earliest built timber buildings in the Hawkesbury. It runs in in the first half a dozen. It's very rare. It's also rare in that it has maintained its usage. As a tourism centre, as a guesthouse. I might point out that it has never, ever, and none of the Kurrajong Heights area there has had an
Alcohol licence until the pub, which was built in around about 1920s. So Kurrajong Heights has a tourism thing that they talk about, but it wasn't a tourism for people to turn up and have a few drinks. It was a place where people went to escape the city. And so accommodation was a big part of what it was all about. Now, I see that this site obviously has accommodation, and that's part of an excuse, I guess. The building itself is totally outside the context of Kurrajong Heights itself.
The LEP states , as it has been mentioned, that the building should be simply one storey. Now , there are two two-storey buildings in Kurrajong Heights, except that a lambing cottage is not two storeys. It's one storey with a top. Can I continue? Sorry, I got carried away there. So I'll say a couple of things then quickly. Firstly, the site, the buildings that are the nearest are St David's, Ainslie Cottage and Locke Hill. They are all small, old Douglas cottage as well. They are small. And they are going to be overwhelmed by what is supposedly a two-storey building, but obviously is huge. And the setback is not going to cover that. The amenity of the village will be totally destroyed by this huge building in the middle.
And one thing that I really want to specify at the moment is that at no stage has the construction been considered. During the construction phase, there will be huge amounts of landfill, of road excavations involved . Kurrajong Heights is on a fault line. It is sandstone. There is a very, very small soil overlay. The stonework for the cottage,
The chimneys, fireplaces in Locke Hill and in Douglas Cottage were quarried down the back behind these buildings. There's space down there for a quarry, but this is not stable. Locke Hill is built on soil. It has no foundations. Ditto Albury Cottage. The foundations at Douglas Cottage are a little better. The church is built from sandstone coming out of that quarry, and it is built on the ground. Again, there's virtually nothing under it. Now, once you put— I might comment on the church. It's already had stability problems, and in 1953 they had to put through retaining rods just to stabilise the church. You start putting in huge diggers to take out the huge amount of sandstone that they're going to need to take out there, you are putting those buildings in severe damage. Yep, thank you. Anything else?
It has been discussed previously, stormwater, but we live with the problem. Since IGA was completed and its car park there, we get considerably more rainwater down Douglas Road, to the extent now that when the unkept dirt gutter and pipes underneath the driveways, when they block up, there's just a flood across Douglas Road, crap going everywhere.
When the road is widened, the water will actually run into number 28 Douglas Road. Something in the order of one and a half million litres could run into their property. It's just not on. There's no provision to sort this out.
Council cited management along parking, sewage and traffic issues. Compared to a village shopping centre, the pub will generate much larger quantities of sewage, require more parking, and has more dangerous traffic issues. The council officers and the Transport New South Wales have not made a kosher recommendation in their report,
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to have to read this. My printer broke right as I was about to leave this morning, so I'm reading off here. Apologies. I'm speaking here today on behalf of the elected councillor body, who on Tuesday night unanimously resolved to support the residents in opposition to this DA. Across all political affiliations, we've been contacted by residents who consider introduction of a development of this magnitude into their landscape will have far-reaching detrimental and irreversible impacts on their environment, their lives and their lifestyle. It would transform an historic small local centre into an unrecognisable streetscape, losing the unique character of Kurrajong Heights and threatening the surrounding fragile ecology.
Incompatibility with zone objectives of the E1 zone are of concern, particularly the aim to provide a range of retail business and community uses that serve the needs of people. Who live in, work or visit the area. This proposal does not service the needs of those living in Kurrajong Heights. Such a large development would concentrate visitors into one point, generating issues around traffic movements, parking and, of course, drainage and effluent disposal. I'm formerly the mayor and deputy mayor, having served 12 years on this council. I understand the importance and value of specific local knowledge being provided when decisions are made and when we prepare our strategic planning documents, the history, topography, lifestyle and the challenges related to utility provision, ecological impacts and other issues.
Today we've heard speakers relate these to you. Too often now we see impacts of planning decisions which can result in a burden for ratepayers years later, and we need to be careful in every decision that we don't do that. In 2024, it's difficult to be still dealing with sewage collection as an issue, and it's something the council is continuously working on, of course. But the exemption of DCP clauses due to the use of a commercial rather than council-provided service has not necessarily been understood by the community. I was surprised that a group site visit was not part of this process, and I'm not sure how many people have actually been there. But if you haven't walked around this site, it would be very hard to fully grasp what's at stake.
The number of submissions from concerned residents show how deeply worried the community is. This development represents a major change to their surroundings and way of life. I'm also concerned about the inconsistency and confusion around documentation, anomalies around advice around this panel hearing today, and I support the call for a deferment to enable better understanding for all parties around the overall impacts. The residents have voiced their key concerns, including potential intrusions on heritage, privacy, increased noise and light pollution, more traffic and the increased movement of water and sewage tankers on their roads. These factors could disrupt the character of the area and negatively affect the quality of life for those who call Kurrajong Heights home and for all of us who live in the Hawkesbury overall.
Questions. I'd like to hear you respond to some of the concerns about the traffic, just some of the things, the way you've approached it and maybe, yeah.
So Vince is the traffic engineer. He's the expert, and he will give you a better insight of what the traffic was assessed for this place. I can give you a quick summary, and then probably Vince can— Okay. No, yeah, I mean a quick summary of what we did for the traffic assessment. So Vince was engaged by the client to produce his report. He went and did his calculations. So I understand that there are different calculations coming from the community as well, but Vince based his calculations also in facts and in data that he collected from the area. Something that I want to highlight is that the Archibald is not just a pub, it's also a bottle shop, which means that the traffic that is generated there is not just for the pub, it's also for people constantly coming in and out just for one-off service.
So that probably alters the numbers a little bit. We have only a pub service, which is the normal standard bar and food service and accommodation at the rear as well, and that's how Vince and his team calculated the flux of cars
Have also areas designated inside the pub for loading and unloading of goods, so no trucks will be queuing outside the pub or on the public roads. No blockage will be happening because of this. Also, we have— Enough spaces to support the guests that are going to come to the pub, also for the accommodation. So we provided enough for this. The same, the traffic report supports all these calculations made, and traffic and transport New South Wales also supported this application, and they find that our numbers are coherent with the—
Can I just ask you, just go back one step. When you said, so all the traffic, talking about loading and unloading, yeah will go into the site? They will go into the site. We heard there was some concern about the sewage truck. Have you considered the size of the sewage truck? I mean, have you been through that? And I suppose your traffic person can answer that question too. Yeah. So
For the sewage, it will be collected on site as well. So there are tanks, underground tanks, where everything will be stored, and some of them will be aerated, some of them will be there, and they will have capacity for, I think it's about seven days for storage, and then the truck will come and drive down the driveway, park on the loading zone.
And then it'll do whatever it's got to do in the site. Hang on, that's what— Lisa will go down Douglas Road into the site, sit on the site, do whatever it's got to do. Same for the water delivery?
Sorry. I'll repeat what I just said. So the trucks will come from the front of the pub, which is from Warkwill Road, down the driveway, park at the back of the pub where the loading area has been designed, and they do everything they have to do there. There's a reverse area for them that has been already assessed by the traffic consultant as well, so the truck can easily reverse on the site and then drive up the driveway in a forward direction again. No, it doesn't go back on the driveway. So only the trucks are allowed to drive in and
Yeah, heritage. So heritage, we did a big research and a big study in terms of the history of the site and the context as well. So we started by, we went to several libraries here in Sydney and in Kurrajong as well. We did our research online. We worked together with our heritage consultant, and we compiled a big amount of information. That gave us a result of what we took as our main element for the design. So the main points that we have for the history. So I'm going to go through the presentation I have prepared for my history part. So first, we had the site context and history. So we have done extensive research into the history of the area, and we have worked alongside the heritage consultants, both from the client and from the council, since the beginning throughout the design process.
The outcome of our research and collaboration with our client's heritage consultant and our responses to the heritage input from council resulted in a proposal that is suitable within its context. We have aimed to be respectful to the rich history of the area, and our design takes inspiration from the surrounding significant architecture. In our research, we looked at the site location and the evolution of the links from Sydney to Bathurst and the Hunter Valley to get a better understanding of Carrington Heights, main purpose, the way it was used, why it was important throughout history, and what has driven it to be developed the way it has been. Further to this, we looked at the history of the buildings in the area and the architectural styles they reference.
We also carried out an analysis of the urban patterns so that we could understand what may be appropriate for our site. Some of the key research discoveries that influenced our design
Carrington Heights was originally created as bed and breakfast place, and that due to the trading relationship between Bathurst and Sydney, it was used as a stopover for travellers
So what else have you got to say, just generally? You don't have to say any more about what's already in your report. We've got the report. Yeah, yeah, okay. So I understand what you— and I mean, as a broad concept, the council asked you to change it. You did some changes to the development, especially to the exterior, and you would say that fits better in with the historical—
Yeah, so after we lost the original DA, we had comments from council, from the community, and then what we did was addressing those comments and breaking down the bulk and scale of the building.
Just on the heritage, can you explain to me your choice of materials and finishes and the colours, and maybe explain a little bit... About briefly about what's been chosen and why. Yeah, sure.
Okay. So again, this was a process that we started with council from a PDA, and where we talk about materials and colors as well. So the buildings at the moment, the main materiality is going to be the sandstone. So that's a reflection of the sandstone that has been utilized in the area since the very beginning. That's the main material of the building. Now, the roof, we have an iron sheeting for the roof. That's also a reflection of the vernacular architecture that was original on site. So the Australian vernacular architecture was pretty much like tin houses with a veranda, mainly just like in timber structure and tin. So that's where we utilize the roof.
And we also have, so that's the main materials that you will see from the front, is the sandstone and the iron roof as well, which are like the predominant materials in the heritage elements on the area.
Right, and there also seems to be a proposal for these sort of white stacked bricks. Can you explain that to me and the sort of vertical weatherboard cladding?
Yeah. So the stacked bricks, they are at the back of the pub. They are like a secondary section of the building, which is not seen from the street. So that was like the modern component of the building, as well, like the brick reflects the brick utilized on the houses around. Some of the houses have brick, so that's why we have that brick, but with a modern look as well. So we just focus all the modern brick right at the back of the property, not seen from the street.
Sorry, you can't hear me without the mic. Sorry, can we just start with the trucks, the delivery trucks. Let's start with the sewerage trucks and then the water trucks, because they seem to have taken up some time.
Yeah, so, Vince Stone from Traffix, the traffic engineer for the proposed development. Service vehicles will enter the development from Walters Hill Road and will be managed, ensuring that service vehicles will be conducted during off-peak times. Reference should be made to the traffic impact assessment report, Appendix C, showing swept path analysis for an 8.8 metre MRV, which is the medium rigid vehicle where trucks are able to turn around on the site.
No, no, no, sorry, no, that's incorrect. The traffic report even states that the service vehicles will enter and exit from Walters Hill Road, and it's shown within the swept path analysis as well. All other vehicles, light vehicles, will be entering from Douglas and then exiting from Walters Hill Road.
The sewerage point. The sewerage point is on Douglas Road, which is very, very close on the SK102 drawing. It is in the top right, and it is very close to the six metre wide driveway. Therefore, it would be impacting the driveway for patrons to enter the car park for a significant amount of time. And the vehicle being long, being a resident of the Hawkesbury, I know when I drive down Terrace Road in North Richmond, the Staples truck is always on that road when I want to drive down it, and it does take up a significant amount of my time going down to go and do my shop in North Richmond, turning around, doing my shop, and coming back. The truck is still there, right? So it does take a significant amount of time. So I'm a little confused as to how you're going to manage that when the truck cannot enter your premises given the size of that vehicle.
And I've never seen a Staples vehicle, you know, have metres and metres of hose. And if they did, then the pump would actually take a lot longer for that to happen, given the fact that it's a longer metreage. So I just can't get past this, how this is logistically working there.
Okay, so in terms of sewage, that would be a management position. The vehicles that I know of in the service vehicles will all enter from Wattle Hill Road, and there's a turnaround area for the site that vehicles can turn around and then reverse into that loading area and then exit in the forward direction.
So just so I understand, that means, I understand they're all the normal service vehicles. The reality is you haven't been asked to and you haven't assessed the size of the trucks and the trucks that are there for sewerage and water delivery.
Thank you. Now, can you just then talk to the traffic . You heard the evidence from the submission, I should say, from Mr Hallam and some of his numbers. And I think a strong part of what he was saying from his point of view was that there wasn't enough survey work done to properly analyse the traffic that would be generated. So can you respond to that?
Yes. So traffic analysis of the proposed development and surrounding road network has been assessed and reviewed. Traffic has liaised with Council and Transport for New South Wales in relation to the traffic generation and assessment of nearby intersections as well. So it can be also referenced page 38 of Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel agenda, which states Council's development engineer and— Transport for New South Wales has reviewed the application and its impact on traffic generation, on-site manoeuvrability, ingress and egress, and impacts upon the nearby classified roads. No objections is raised in this respect to the proposed data. So, in terms of the data itself, the data in relation to traffic generation is commercial sensitive data, which has been provided to Council.
Council has reviewed and assessed this data with no objections as well. So, you know, during this process, during the DA, we have sent this data to Council, has reviewed as well.
And then in relation to... so, with Transport for New South Wales have assessed the local road network and suitable safe intersection sight distance on Bills Line Road and Walt Hill Road, including crash data of the intersection . In addition to that, Transport for New South Wales deemed that a slip lane was unnecessary given the traffic report provided and the already suitable traffic intersection sight distance on Bills Line Road and Walt Hill Road. Reference should be made to page 42 of the planning panel agenda as well. Which provides that discussion . So it has been a lengthy process, and I guess it has been a process where I myself, with council and transport, have been offline and discussing all these matters and working through these matters as well.
Okay, that's— we don't have any other questions, unless— if you just stay there for a moment, Mr. Doan, and I'll just ask the architect one other thing.
At 7 a.m., that I have to say is more a question that relates to the management of the place rather than the architecture. I don't think I can really answer that one.
Just come back to this pump truck issue. If I'm led to believe what I'm supposed to understand, that the pump-out truck will stand in the loading bay. It comes off Walks Hill Road and goes back up Walks Hill Road. That loading bay is 100 metres from where the pump-out is, and it's going to be pumped from here to
Okay, so that brings us to the end of this item. So we'll move on to the next one. Is there anyone here for 40 Racecourse Road, Clarendon? I don't think there is. There's no registered speakers. And same for 16 Stewart Street, South Windsor. Is that correct? So otherwise that brings us to a close of this open part of the meeting. And as I said when we opened, we will have a private session now, and then the determination of this will be up on the council's website about a week maybe before that. Thank you for your attendance. Thank you for submissions.
