Sign In
or Create a new account
Alternative Areas
Where else do you think extra housing should be provided?
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
Comment 1 17 Mar 2009, 1:53 PM
Vaucluse, preferably on the waterfront! As if!
Pennant Hills:
Seriously, extra housing and associated development should have been planned now in Pennant Hills (the streets are as wide as anywhere else, or as an alternative think Melbourne laneways). Along Yarrara Rd also. Perhaps Pennant Hills Rd.
Thornleigh:
More in Thornleigh because it has a shopping centre and business area. also anything between Thornleigh and Pennant Hills stations can easily access either station and town centre.
And why was the new block subdivision (for low density housing)allowed to go ahead just further north of Thornleigh shops? These were approved in late 2007. Council was already looking more…
Comment 1.1 20 Apr 2009, 10:28 AM
It is ridiculous that Pennant Hills has been left off the Housing Strategy. It is an established transport hub and town centre and has despite this has largely been ignored by Hornsby Council planning staff for many years. If this Housing Strategy is planning for future growth, then Pennant Hills cannot be ignored and not put in the 'too hard' basket.
Comment 2 17 Mar 2009, 8:45 PM
More on Hornsby:
Why are so many car yards occupying prime space near the CBD and railway stations?
Why can't these be rationalised so they don't occupy so much land? In many overseas countries car showrooms are in multi storey buildings. In this way they are more effcient in how much land they take up. It would be like apartments for cars. It seems really bizarre and wrong that people are expected to live in high rise, particularly when near transport nodes and town centres but cars can blissfully spread out on ground, blissfully getting dirty so more water is wasted on keeping them clean and shiny for potential customers. In fact car yards can very easily be in a more out of the way spot because after all, chances are that you will drive when visiting a car yard!
Comment 2.1 20 Mar 2009, 5:16 PM
There are so many car yards along Pennant Hills rd near Pennant Hills/Thornleigh. They are taking up valuable housing areas close to the rail line for both suburbs. They could even build units above the car showrooms if they thought about it, like they did at Waitara. I don't see why cars get to stay parked in their big yards, yet actual human beings get thrown out of their beautiful homes.
Comment 2.1.1 22 Mar 2009, 10:16 AM
Can you tell me where the aprtments above the car showrooms are in Waitara? I did not think there were any and would like to see them if they exist. I know that one dealership (toyota?) is knocking existing structures down and rebuilding but I think it is only a bigger showroom and service centre, without any residential.
Comment 3 17 Mar 2009, 9:07 PM
Why not get Hornsby Quarry re-zoned and make use of the council's $25 million purchase.
It's not that far from the Hornsby CBD.
Comment 3.1 17 Mar 2009, 9:28 PM
It is unstable in many parts so not safe to build on. There are some areas near the entrance I think, where building would be possible. It is pretty close to the CBD.
Comment 3.1.1 29 Mar 2009, 8:54 PM
I'd rather have high rise over twice of much of Hornsby than let this fantastic space go for housing.
Hornsby has a complete lack of decent size parks in the housing area of hornsby. Nothing even approaching the relatively small West Pymble BiCentennial park.
The Quarry area is the lst chance to get a decent park/greens space for Hornsby urban area.
So while I think the "unstable" tag is complete bull (compare units built right on the edge of the cliffs in the Eastern suburbs), I'm happy it is one thing to stop that last dencet green space going under.
Comment 3.1.1.1 30 Mar 2009, 9:21 AM
Read the geo technical report. Don't confuse the stable rocks cliffs of the Eastern suburbs with the manmade cliffs and other physical changes of the quarry.
In fact, it may well be that even if left as a passive recreational area, some of it will be closed off to people because of the instability. So it could end up being a looking at from afar park rather than a playing in park.
Comment 3.1.1.1.1 30 Mar 2009, 7:40 PM
Have you ever walked down there. There is a huge area of very useable space for parkland and recreation on what appears to be very old and stable levelling/fill, with only a portion of the overall space anywhere near the actual quarry hole.
Compared with some of our recreation parks built on top of old poorly managed rubbish tips, this space would seem to be perfect.
And, as Lizo said, even the quarry hole could be filled with all those lovely brick houses from Normanhurst :-)
What is the real agenda for this area is anyone's guess, cause the present stated reasons for not developing the stable areas are not to be trusted.
Comment 3.1.1.1.1.1 30 Mar 2009, 8:12 PM
Yes I have walked down there. I was also shown the unstable bits. It's a very interesting place1
Comment 3.2 18 Mar 2009, 10:36 AM
I think the council has the quarry ear-marked as the dumping ground for all the old houses they want to demolish!
Comment 3.2.1 18 Mar 2009, 10:39 AM
HA ha! Thats good! Cheap local fill!
Careful though, they might think that is a really sound strategy and take it seriously.
Comment 3.3 30 Mar 2009, 7:14 PM
Please NO!
One thing Hornsby Urban definitely lacks is a decent sized open space park. And the old quarry/Old Mans Valley is the last hope.
Maybe pay for developing the park with a bit of high density housing, but not much.
Comment 3.3.1 17 May 2009, 3:55 PM
Richard, this is what I think may be one of the suggestions being proposed to council, an entirely reasonable one at that. Although the good burghers of Manor Rd may not be too happy! Any housing would only be on the southern/eastern perimeter anyway and would not impinge on their views and we would still have a sizeable park.
Comment 4 18 Mar 2009, 10:11 AM
How on earth did HSC come up with the areas for 'Precincts in Asquith'?
One would have thought that the first preference would be for areas that have little (or no) effect on surrounding neighbours.
Perhaps more suitable locations would include the stretch of the Pacific Hwy North of Mills Ave where the Western side properties back onto parkland (Asquith Park) and Eastern side properties back onto the railway corridor - less people affected here!
Also the precincts along Royston Pde, particularly near Asquith Public and St Matthews Catholic School - ridiculous! Has anyone from HSC tried to drive through here on a weekday morning between 8.30am and 9.30am? Maybe HSC will consider a 'congestion tax' as the solution!
Comment 4.1 22 Mar 2009, 9:13 PM
The 'Precincts in Asquith' has a devestating impact on surrounding properties. I agree I am bemused with what the HSC has come up with.
In Asquith there are a number of streets where only one side of the street is zoned for 5 storey apartments. I don't think the Council thought about what would happen to the residents on the other side of the street. I don't think the Council will compensate them for the loss of privacy and the drop in their land values (after all, no one wants to live across the street from an apartment block).
Comment 5 20 Mar 2009, 2:18 PM
Streets that have good quality and well maintained housing (such as those that have been chosen in Normanhurst), should not be chosen to be rezoned. It is criminal and wasteful and not condusive to good environmental practices to destroy such housing. Council encourages us to recycle, yet they are destroying and throwing away housing and all the materials that they constructed with. Where is all the waste from these destroyed houses going to be dumped?
It would be far better to choose streets where the houses are not in good condition.
Comment 5.1 28 Mar 2009, 7:12 PM
Lizo, get real.
You should well know that a lot of housing material is now recycled, not just dumped.
And it IS good environmental practice to put high density living close to transport facilities. Of would you rather we put them down in Berwora valley. People have to live somewhere!
I can't comment on the actual worth of the housingin the particular streets. You might have a point. But don't bring silly little arguments about wher eithe old housing material going to be dumped. Especially as you then go on to propose knocking donw some other housing anyway!
It is not being a sensible environmentalist to just resist, resist, resist.
Comment 5.1.1 28 Mar 2009, 9:34 PM
Richard, get real.
A lot of housing material does not get recycled. It goes to landfill.
Yes, it is often good environmental practice to put higher densities next to transport facilities but at the same time you also have to take into consideration the merits and value of the existing. Sometimes it makes more sense to redevelop something a bit further out if it is of less quality and take the transport facilities out to it rather than the other way round.
Be fair to Lizo. She said that it makes more sense to get rid of lesser quality housing than better quality housing. The lesser quality housing will be gotten rid of sooner rather than later anyway, so you end up with getting rid of twice as much existng housing in the end. Lizo is actually being very sensible and responsible and rational and may I say sensibly, environmentally conscious.
Perhaps you should go see the homes she is talking about. Maybe even if you can, be invited inside.
Comment 5.1.1.1 29 Mar 2009, 9:04 PM
Lizo proposed demolishing other houses instead. So how does that reduce the landfill ?
Everyone has therir own views on what is Quality Housing. My view is in regard to fit for purpose, and the social good.
Having an empty nester couple who can barely maintain their property (perhaps a stereo type that is wrong, but then this debate is not exactly filled with real information anyway) sitting on a large block near to good public transport, is not QUALITY housing. It is inappropriate housing.
I work around St Ives, and there is large number of QUALITY houses there that get demolished, just to build one of your disliked McMansions. Unless Normanhurst is a declared heritage area, that is probably what will happen there too in the nearish future. Except that actually, people with money tend to like to live away from the railway and the noisy highway.
Better to use the blocks for appropriate housing.
And remember, no-one is going to force anyone to sell, if they hold their house so dear.
Comment 5.1.1.1.1 30 Mar 2009, 9:39 AM
Yep you are quite right. Everyone can have their own views on things. But some people's views at the end of the day can be better and more valid than others. In any matter.
Housing, or any building for that matter should not be reduced to being solely judged by its fit for purpose and social good. Actually sometimes, fit for purpose and social good are at complete odds with each other. For example the massive, bleak housing estates, high rise and not that were built all over Europe after WWII. Many still standing. Fit for purpose perhaps. But common more…
Comment 5.1.1.1.1.1 30 Mar 2009, 6:28 PM
So, as we keep coming back to, no one is forced to sell, and no developer will buy the properties if they are worth more than they want to pay for them. So, for lucky little Normanhurst, what is there really to worry about ?
To answer my own question, what is to worry about is if the rates go up. Now, if it's already worth more than the developers want to pay for it, then logically the value and the rates won't go up. Or is the issue there that the current rates are actually levied on a lower valuation than the land in beautiful Normanhurst is really worth?
(No hidden implications intended. How do the rates in Normanhurst compare with say the rates for some of the new partment blocks along the north shore line? Anyone know ?)
Just maybe, Normanhurst is safe anyway.
Comment 5.1.1.1.1.1.1 30 Mar 2009, 11:58 PM
You are absolutely right that no-one is forced to sell. But rezoning of itself brings a lot of uncertainty and - especially for the elderly - FEAR about what's going to happen. Will the bloke next door sellout? If he does, will I have units next door looking in my living room window? What if I am the last to hold out and then can't sell my property for fair value? These are all disruptive to a life that people are accustomed to. Sure this will happen anywhere you go, but let's not dismiss the protest with simply "no-one has to sell". That's what the community will rely on if we have to get to plan B, if we can't get the strategy altered.
Comment 5.1.1.1.2 30 Mar 2009, 10:22 AM
If quality housing is based on getting as many people as possible to live near the station, this leads us down the path of shoebox apartments like I've seen in Japan where you have to fold away your dining table each night to make room for your fold out bed.
I agree that empty-nesters unable to maintain a property should find an alternative, but I don't think the council should make that decision for them. Many of this demographic are keen gardeners and will provide a well-kept front garden that benefits EVERYONE in the street as they walk by. Who knows - many of these empty-nesters probably also provide their homes for weekend barbecues for neighbours or the extended family and grandkids running in the back yard. This atmosphere is severely limited if they move into a 2-bed unit.
Comment 5.1.1.2 29 Mar 2009, 9:05 PM
The vast bulk does get recycled these days. Bricks, tiles, concrete. Becuase it gnerally costs a fortune to send it to landfill.
Comment 5.1.1.2.1 30 Mar 2009, 10:29 AM
Maybe straightforwrad stuff like bricks. But a building is made up of a lot more , such as plastics. Plus if the waste doesn't get differentiated it ends up going to landfill because it is compromiseed so to speak, and therefore, non recycleable.
Comment 5.1.1.2.1.1 5 Apr 2009, 6:06 PM
100% true. Real info,Richard take note, I worked 12 years in the waste industy you will pay more than 100& PER tonne! at a trnasfer or landfill site. Hence why bricks,tiles,concrete & steel is recycled. 1 cubic metre of bricks can be as heavy as 2 or 3 ton. Some landfill sites I been at ANYTHING & EVERYTHING is dumped. You name it it's in a landfill site household,fit-outs,green,demolition the list goes on & on. Recycling PLEASE don't make me laugh.
Comment 5.1.2 31 Mar 2009, 1:11 AM
Actually Richard, if you read my other comments I do not say resist resist resist. I am actually in agreement with a lot of what you are saying.
I do not, however, agree with that particular area that is proposed to be rezoned in Normanhurst. Have you actually seen the area, or are you preaching at us from your pulpit in Asquith? And why are you so determined that Normanhurst should be rezoned? Surely it is up to Normanhurst residents to say whether they think rezoning is appropriate or not for their area, not you.
Comment 5.2 1 Apr 2009, 12:01 AM
I'd like to know how you are going to decide which houses are in good condition? Whether the house is in 'good' or 'bad' condition is completely irrelevant.
There are other factors that need to be considered such as proximity to facilities and possibility of future expansion.
Unfortunately (or fortunately - depending on how to you look at it) Asquith and Normanhurst are ideal for the Council's purpose.
Comment 5.2.1 1 Apr 2009, 4:41 PM
I don't think that it would be too difficult to decide what the quality of a property is. Also I strongly disagree and so would many others that the quality and merits of a house (or group of houses) are completely irrelevant factors in deciding where to expand or make other changes.
This sort of attitude is a rock-bottom view of the world and assessing things within it.
Thankfully, everyone does not think like this. Thankfully, there are people who care about other values such as history, architecture, neighbourhood character and so on, and are willing to fight for their retention. This is exactly how the Green Bans successfully saved many historic tracts of Sydney.
Comment 5.2.1.1 4 Apr 2009, 7:38 PM
What I meant to say was that the quality of the housing should not be the sole factor in deciding which areas to rezone.
Some houses are not in the best condition and are not maintained for reasons we are sometimes not aware of, which is frustrating to many neighbours. But it is someone's home and families have probably lived there for generations.
I don't think it is fair to re-zone an area just because it has houses in a 'bad' condition.
Secondly, I do NOT agree with the HSC as shown in my other commetns. I definately do have a rock-bottom attitude more…
Comment 5.2.1.1.1 5 Apr 2009, 8:45 PM
Thanks uaw. I think there are many stressed out and upset people at the moment in our area. What you said was very heartfelt. It also touched on a number of things that are very important to one's existence like your neighbours and which can't be measured in cold, hard economic and statistical terms.
Bluntly, Asquith and Normanhurst have railway stations, and they think we are an easier target than some other suburbs further down the line, or the newer areas , not on the railway line but with bus services.
Comment 5.2.1.1.1.1 12 May 2009, 5:20 PM
Asquith,Normamhurst & Waitara are only one stop away from a main interchange just a thought
Comment 5.2.1.1.1.1.1 12 May 2009, 5:39 PM
Except that for Waitara and Normanhurst it is in the opposite direction to peak hour travel, so that it makes it kind of useless most of the time as the trains never coincide
Comment 5.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 26 May 2009, 3:26 PM
With the new services via Ryde, from later in 2009, Normanhurst will be on the raltively quick route to teh city.
Comment 5.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 26 May 2009, 4:13 PM
What services via Ryde? Services via Rydelater in the year means having to change at epping.This is going to take longer than it does now
Comment 6 20 Mar 2009, 5:30 PM
I think that some other areas which would be better suited to high density include: Epping, Eastwood (it would fit in there as there's already high density units in those areas) and the car yards along Pennant Hills rd near Thornleigh/Pennant Hills.
Comment 6.1 24 Mar 2009, 9:21 PM
It is particularly bemusing that Epping isn't included given the significant State Govt investment into the new rail corridor.
Comment 6.1.1 25 Mar 2009, 8:40 AM
I think they mumbled something about it being part of some larger state strategic plan because of the new rail link.
Also, there are 2 local government areas there. but I think we should find out more details of the plans for Epping, state responsibility or not. Perhaps Council could add to the government targets there?
And definitely Pennant hills should be reviewed. Also Thornleigh and Hornsby itself. They are all commercial areas that need improvements so this could be part of that
Comment 6.2 24 Mar 2009, 9:22 PM
Removed by moderator. Comment was a duplicate
Comment 6.3 30 Mar 2009, 6:35 PM
Add more high density to existing high density is your suggestion ? Isn't that what led us to Waitara anyway ?
My personal objection would be to large areas of high rise. Having a few blocks just along the highway at Asquith, as per the Pacific Highway in Wahroonga, Killara etc would seem far more preferable than having a bigger area of high denisty in Eastwood.
Funny thing about objections to high rise in Hornsby. Everyone quotes Waitara. But no-one seems to mind the area between Barker and Westfield. Despite these being much higher. Why? Probably because they face off over a broad road, instead of over a narrow street. People don't feel so much they are living on top of each other, looking into each others rooms over a short distance.
Comment 6.3.1 10 Apr 2009, 5:01 PM
One of the reasons we quote Waitara is that we can remember how the streets used to have houses and there even was a nursery there. Now most of the streets near Waitara are lined with high rise apartment blocks.
Plus some of the apartment blocks between Barker and Westfield overlook the pacific hwy or the railway. I don't think there are streets where one side is lined with apartment blocks and the other side has single/two storey homes. Which was the case in Waitara during the development of the apartment blocks and is the case for the houses near the Oval. Also, it is something a some of us will face if the HSC goes ahead.
Comment 7 25 Mar 2009, 9:56 PM
DANGAR ISLAND!
The only way to and from the island is by PUBLIC TRANSPORT - A FERRY and then you catch A TRAIN! It sounds too good to be true! And it is a hop skip and a jump to Gosford by train, even Newcastle, which would greatly help these areas in becoming much more commercially viable.
It would be a totally car free community! How sustainable is that?
Comment 8 26 Mar 2009, 8:49 PM
WESTLEIGH
CHERRYBROOK
They both have bus services which with more residents can be increased. Cherrybrook has an M2 City bus, I think the same one that picks people up at Thompson's Corner. We really need to address some of the sprawl that is going on within those suburbs. Plus they both have decent shopping centres, especially Cherrybrook and they both have lots of playing fields. Cherrybrook even has a pool. So lots of nice new amenities, and Cherrybrook High school is nearby, a quite new school. All that you need are some peak hour dedicated bus lanes so commuters can be quickly moved.
Comment 8.1 28 Mar 2009, 7:15 PM
Bus services, and the roads from Cherrybrook, are not a patch on living within walking distance of a decent train service. Are you really promoting more road traffic in place of more central living ?
Comment 8.1.1 28 Mar 2009, 9:48 PM
Hey! Merely more buses and less cars! Let's rationalise the suburban sprawl areas! The sacred MacMansionista areas. Why should they go unscathed?
Buses are a legitimate form of public urban transportation and supported by our council (see defence of Thompson's Corner, West Pennant Hills as a high density precinct). I stated that there should be dedicated peak hour bus lanes. Hence cars and buses never mix. This already happens on other major road arteries in our fair city. These people chose to live in less convenient places. I, and others, chose responsibly to live within walking distance of a railway station so as to commute to work by public transport. We, by choice own one car. We do not have a bloated, sprawly, poorly built house. We cherish the age of our home and value the contribution it makes to the cultural history of the area.
At the end of the day, the responsible people suffer and the others still are allowed to continue driving their cars.
Comment 8.1.1.1 29 Mar 2009, 9:14 PM
>>>>>>>>>Buses are a legitimate form of public urban transportation and supported by our council<<<<<<<
But the flaw is, they are not much supported by the public!
Over recents years, as far as I am aware, they have actually reduced the number of buses servicing Cherrybrook, or at least the area populated with retirement villages!
This is a market economy, not a command economy. In general that means the poor people go and live out in the burbs and have to catch the bus or drive, putting up with the congestion, while the affluent enjoy being both central and being close to decent train service, and even have heritage value housing. But complain when the market means that high density can push the affluent out of this preferred space.
The market is just being deregulated to allow us to catch up with what should have been done years ago!
Comment 8.1.1.1.1 30 Mar 2009, 9:48 AM
By your logic, people who live in West Pennant Hills valley, Castle Hill, Glenhaven, Cherrybrook and acreage in Viney's Lane Dural are poor people, battlers!!!!!!!
Re: buses - I am merely highlighting the official position on buses by both the State government and Hornsby council.
This may be a market economy but it sure feels like a command one at times!
Comment 8.1.1.1.1.1 30 Mar 2009, 6:41 PM
Please Bellinid. Even you, i am sure, are ware that the poor people of Sydney go live in the distant suburbs like St MAry's, Campbelltown etc. Not uniformly, but generally so. Or the Central Coast. And yes, a few do live in the odd shack in Kenthurst too.
As to feeling like a command economy. This move is making it less so. They are removing some of the limitations on use of land, releasing the inherent value that has been locked up by a restrictive practice. No one is saying you MUST build high rise, just that now, in these areas, you will now have the choice of building high rise, or selling to someone who wants to do that. Freedoms you did not have before.
Isn't the free market wonderful :-b
Comment 8.1.1.1.1.1.1 31 Mar 2009, 8:35 AM
Hey RB43! I was only quoting places that you mentioned somewhere or other. You mentioned Kenthurst, you mentioned the battlers there. I questioned the probability of this.
Having freedoms is such a great thing! I, and others, will have so much freedom that we won't know what to do with it!
Comment 8.2 15 May 2009, 1:16 PM
Boundary Road during weekdays peak time is a nightmare
Comment 8.2.1 17 May 2009, 3:47 PM
It is no different to any of the other major roads in the area unfortunately.
Comment 9 27 Mar 2009, 10:33 AM
Further to my earlier comments on Cherrybrook, I wish to add some more.
Some of the housing stock in Cherrybrook has just about reached its' use-by date anyway as it is only of the commonly found cheaply built brick veneer spec. home variety. This style and era of housing is found everywhere. There is nothing particularly noteworthy about it and it does not age well. Indeed some of these homes are already been knocked down to be replaced by the up to date, bigger flashier version of the same, which in turn, at some point in the not too distant future more…
Comment 10 30 Mar 2009, 6:28 PM
I think council have made some errors with identifying potential precincts for rezoning.
Normanhurst should be excluded based on:
The constraints and limitations already highlighted in the proposal.
The fact that it is only a neighbourhood centre (smaller than a small village!).
Existing character/history that will be lost. Normanhurst currently has no high density so high density is aesthetically wrong in this area.
Cost of land is more expensive in Normanhurst than it is in the Nth of Hornsby shire.
Also Normanhurst should be left as predominately single dwellings as an option for families who wish to upgrade in the future from areas of high density i.e young couples with kids from places like Waitara for when they require more space and yard for a growing family.
It makes sense to increase high density around viable larger economic centres such as Hornsby, Waitara, Thornleigh, Pennant Hills, Epping, Beecroft & Carlingford. These areas can better sustain an increase such as high density than a small neighbourhood centre. Also areas that need an upgrade such as Asquith & Berowra.
Comment 10.1 6 May 2009, 11:19 AM
This is a "not in my backyard" (NIMBY) comment.
Where is the "viable larger economic centre" behind Carlingford Station and in the Baulkham Hills municipality? Nearly all the residents in the high rise apartments travel 6 or more kilometres to work.
I feel that there are areas close to a railway station and in a gully which would be suitable for high rise apartment buildings (ie 5-10 stories) and would not destroy the leafy precinct or other heritage landmarks. Hornsby's Housing Strategy document is very bereft in discussing this aspect and has instead left to the State government to decide what development is to take place within 800 metres of the existing railway lines. (See page 77, Consultation with external Agencies - Dept of Planning (Regional Team) section in the document.)
Comment 10.1.1 26 May 2009, 3:40 PM
Fact. for reasons of gradient, the North Shore and northerern line railways are basically built along ridges.
Result. If you are going to build high density near to a station, odds are it's going to be on the ridge!
Even if you find a gully near a station, do you really want to build the high rise down in the gully?
- People who live in units don't have backyards. But guess what, they do like having views.
- Why reserve the flatter areas near the station for low density, and many more people in the high rise walk up hill to the station.
What is the problem with having a high rise visble on the skyline anyway ? OK, it's less ideal than having trees, but is it that bad ? I've lived close to such units in the past, and can't say it was really a problem.
Comment 11 30 Mar 2009, 6:53 PM
I put this suggestion in before, but somehow it disappeared!
--------------
I'd suggest go at least town houses for the whole of the area bounded by Bridge Rd, Sherbrook Rd, Asquith Bridge/Baldwin Rd, the Pacific Highway, with 5 storey along Jersey St North and the Pacific Hiwghway. Plus the Sherbrook Rd end of Michigan, Stokes, Baldwin Dudley, Hazelmead
All within walking distance of Hornsby Station and shops/commercial centre, or Asquith station and the NEW asquith shops. (Ideally with a footbridge over the Asquith rrailway station to the NEW asquith shops.
The area on the east of the railway is also within walking distance of Asquith industrial area.
And, perhaps in the process, reduce some of the ridiculously wide streets in the area! Kids no longer play in the streets. So they are really so much wasted space. Use the additional amalgamated space to provide them with a decent park or two. Plus park space suitable for our elderly.
Comment 11.1 1 Apr 2009, 2:53 PM
You should remember that the area bound by Jersey St North and Pacific Hwy is on top of a hill. To put 5 or 3 storey apartments in this area is simply bad planning. These developments would be seen from far and wide. These areas are best left for townhouse developments and not high rise. Any developments in the Jersey St North or Lords Ave and Pacific Hwy areas are a developers dream come true.
At this stage the only high rise in the Asquith area should be the commerical centre and this must be limited to a maximum of 5 storeies. The other area I would pick for high rise would be down Bridge Rd and between the Hornsby TAFE and Fire Station.
Comment 11.2 26 Apr 2009, 7:19 PM
I thought your suggestion was sarcastic- but then I realised you were serious!! How exactly do you propose to utilise space from narrowed streets?!! Have you used the two access roads from Royston Parade to Pacific Highway at peak times? They are crazily congested as it is!!
This must be a joke?
Comment 12 30 Mar 2009, 7:00 PM
East side of Sherbrook RD, between Burdett and Edgeworth David.
The old housing there is just about collapsing waiting for permission to redevelop. Or are the owners/developers waiting for High rise approval, rather than perhaps just townhouses ?
Comment 12.1 14 Apr 2009, 11:20 AM
I couldn't agree more!!
The land in this area is perfect for redevelopment. It is close to shops, Waitara station and is directly across the road from other units.
Council take note: Scrap Balmoral/Park Avenue and go with Sherbrook Road.
Comment 13 30 Mar 2009, 7:06 PM
Everything on the west and south side of Hornsby station that is within 1km walking distance of the station.
(Dural St, William StAshley St, Webb Av, Forbes St, Lisgar Rd, nursery St, Frederick St (as far as Nursery).
Along with some 5 storey redevelopment in old Hornsby, and stopping through traffic on the Pacific Hwy in old Hornsby.
That could provide real impetus to revitalise old hornsby.
Comment 13.1 15 May 2009, 3:11 PM
My thoughts exactly, why is HSC trying to reinvent the wheel when the solution stares at them in the face.
Comment 14 19 Apr 2009, 9:07 AM
The Standley's backyard since they are happy to see it happen to other people or maybe RichardB43 place it sounds a nice place to live. Now all jokes, aside any if not ALL of the 3 story units around the Westfield shopping centre which will blend in with it's multi-story levels.
Comment 15 20 Apr 2009, 11:07 AM
*Pennant Hills*
In general, transport orientated development (TOD) and smart growth (ie. compact, liveable, walkable communities) is the way of the future. Pennant Hills Town Centre satisfies all the criteria to accommodate more dwellings. An accessible train station, bus interchange, shopping precinct, commercial office precinct, library, schools all make this area a MUST in terms of future housing AND employment growth. Even our Federal Member has decided to locate his office in Pennant Hills!
To omit Pennant Hills (because a Masterplan is still required for the area - section 8.1 page 90) from this important strategy is poor planning and irresponsible. This more…
Comment 15.1 20 Apr 2009, 1:39 PM
Hear Hear! It is imperative that if more housing is to go ahead, that Pennant hills is chosen as a precinct NOW not in the future. More housing or not, Pennant Hills still needs major plannning and improvements. It is pretty rundown but has a lot of potential. This is an opportunity to begin Pennant Hill's revitalisation.
Pennant Hills also has the vast area that is Pennant Hills Park for recreation.
Council claims that there are too many heritage items in the suburb to make development an easy option. Perhaps the area has been generously endowed with such heritage items so that it can avoid rezoning? And other areas are largely lacking in heritage recognition so that they become more dispensible and easier to rezone?
Comment 16 22 Apr 2009, 8:54 PM
No where, in short. If the local population does not want additional development then the council and state should respect this and act accordingly. They are supposed to be governing with our consent and should not forget this. The way they are behaving at the moment is not democratic.
At the next state and local elections my vote will not go to anyone that was not actively opposing this unwanted development.
Failing that then Adelaide - I've heard they are looking for more people.
Comment 16.1 26 May 2009, 3:45 PM
Guess what. If Adelaide is looking for more people, then they will have to build more housing. Just like Sydney has to build more housing to accommodate the people attracted to a vibrant, growing global international city.
Comment 17 27 Apr 2009, 12:14 PM
'Urban consolidation' should not mean a suburban sprawl of highrise dwellings. Urban dwellings should be built in urban hubs; the damage is already done in Hornsby- it has the infrastructure (or can and should be easily improved)- keep all new high rise there.
Good suggestions have been made for suitable Hornsby sites:
*East side Sherbrook Road, just before Edgeworth David.
*West side of Hornsby-
*Between Tafe and Fire station
*The Quarry- why not? The stabilisation of old coal slag heaps in UK have seen housing estates built on them in last 5 years, Eden Project in UK is in a disused Quarry- not sure what other problems there are with the site other than stability?
The reason we have suburban sprawl into places like Kellyville is that people still want to live in houses and homes. The demographic of new residents to Asquith is families- Australian and immigrants. We have a right to have access to suburbs that are not populated by transient, temporary residents. All developments in Asquith should be appropriate low rise.
Hold your nerve council; zone for townhouses not highrise in Asquith.
Comment 18 13 May 2009, 9:18 AM
BEECROFT.
• Further down the train line than northern precincts, closer to employment centres such as Epping, Macquarie Park, Chatswood, Parramatta and Sydney CBD. Closer to universities in Sydney and Macquarie Park. Rail connectivity enhanced by recent Chatswood – Macquarie Park - Epping rail link.
• Large area exists for shopping centre opposite station. Currently a hotch potch of numerous ground level car parks and single storey commercial buildings. Rationalised multi storey high rise dwellings with commercial ground floor, underground parking would provide better space utilisation. Height of multi rise can be increased going down the slope from Beecroft road, maintaining a level height more…
Comment 18.1 13 May 2009, 11:01 AM
THey would never ever consider it. Especially Cheltenham! did you know some guy who donated or subdivided the land for housing long long ago put a covenant on Cheltenham that no shops or business of any description can ever, ever be built in Cheltenham? how stupid is that in this day and age? and it is still legal, it still stands.
Its just as stupid as the Girls public high school there being legally obliged to have a pink uniform forever and ever or else the school reverts to not being a school because of some benefactor!
Comment 18.1.1 13 May 2009, 11:07 AM
No I didn't know. Thanks for the feedback.
Comment 18.1.2 13 May 2009, 11:25 AM
Check it out. Ring the Cheltenham Girls High School. Ring Council. Ring the Beecroft- Cheltenham Trust. They will confirm what I said about the restrictions.
But hey why not some townhouses at least in Cheltenham? And the surface carparks in Beecroft Shopping Centre? and what about down the end of North Rocks RD where Beecroft and Carlingford meet, where there is a small shopping centre?
Comment 18.1.2.1 15 May 2009, 4:13 PM
Great info & it was a interesting phone call. Thanks Bellinid
Comment 18.1.2.1.1 15 May 2009, 9:30 PM
Good luck! Remember the battle is only beginning. June 1 is not the end!
Comment 18.1.3 30 May 2009, 6:47 PM
Hahaha!!!! Someone out there actually thinks that pink uniforms and no shops in perpetuity in Cheltenham is a reasonable thing!!!!! Amazing!
Comment 19 15 May 2009, 1:09 PM
POCKETS OF THE PACIFIC HWY FROM HORNSBY TO BEECROFT:
BRIDGE ST HORNSBY...this alone will fulfill the quoter...
Comment 19.1 15 May 2009, 4:23 PM
The northern side is Federation housing & the southern is already a row of pidgeon boxes. Quality Vs Quantity. Re: Bridge Rd.
Comment 19.1.1 26 May 2009, 3:48 PM
Admittedly only at a quick glance, but although the north side of Bridge St may be Federation, it looks quite run down, and it has large blocks. I like conserving some heritage. But to me that doesn't really qualify for heritage preservation.
Comment 19.2 15 May 2009, 9:33 PM
Good idea but I think you got the wrong road. I think that perhaps you mean Pennant Hills Rd? Pacific Highway does not go to Beecroft. But you can still include the highway from Pearce's corner up to Hornsby.
Comment 19.2.1 18 May 2009, 8:39 AM
Oh yes, I was referring to Pennants Hills Rd, apologies...
Comment 20 16 May 2009, 8:57 PM
I agree with the idea that Pennant Hills, Thornleigh and Cherrybrook should take on more housing. These suburbs seem to be neglected when it comes to new development.
Comment 21 16 May 2009, 11:57 PM
Hi everyone,
Making a comment here is not enough. Please make your view known to the Council by sending a written submission by 1 June 2009.
E-mail: housing@hornsby.nsw.gov.au
Post: The General Manager, Hornsby Shire Council, PO Box37 Hornsby NSW 1630
Comment 22 18 May 2009, 12:56 PM
A lot of us will have realised that especially 2 of our southern neighbour communities along the railway line have been left out of the proposed housing strategy.
That’s not fair and so with ‘unaustralian’. Council can’t discriminate against residents. It’s not necessarily their fault that they have more money. Some people are born rich and influenzal.
Why should our fellow shire residents miss out on all the praised advantages a high density zoning would bring to their community. Only because their properties have already a high value doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be allowed to increase.
And think about how much revitalisation is more…
Comment 23 23 May 2009, 8:47 AM
I can understand that the council is obliged to conform to the Governments request for more housing. we also need parking at the railway stations. Why can't they use some of the areas for a multistory parking station at Mt.Colah. the rest of the areas should only be 2 to 3 story, but add more areas east of the railway line. Having Units on the Pacific Highway is madness. Has anyone ever tried to cross the Pacific Highway in peak hour. How are the residents ever going to get out of their driveways. Eastern side of the railway makes more sense, as they have direct access to the Freeway. But make it low profile. Not another Waitara. Asquith looks quite Ok with the recent townhouse development in Haldane St and Heath st.
Comment 24 23 May 2009, 9:50 PM
Does anyone really think that council will listen to any alternative proposals?
Comment 24.1 26 May 2009, 1:21 PM
I doubt it. Councils create these websites to justify their wages & pretend they are working for the community/rate payer.
Despite the highly organized opposition Ku-ring-gai residents put to their council, it all fell on deaf ears.
To think developers are now asking up to $500,000 for a one bedroom "Junk" unit is criminal. Also strata levy are way too expensive IMO.
Comment 24.2 26 May 2009, 3:52 PM
Well, I guess we can only hope.
But, you know my view, if you try to say know NO NO NO, I guess they won't listen much.
But if we concentrate on improving the plan, ther ei smore chance they will listen.
Comment 25 28 May 2009, 1:32 AM
I have put a number of submissions to the council.
I share these with people for discussion, on a Wiki website www.hornsby.wetpaint.com. On this wiki website, if you join up, you can add your own pages and discussion too.
You don’t need to join up to view.
Look forward to your comments and contributions.
Richard Boult
RB1 - Asquith Shopping Centre – Council can and must be Pro-Active
RB2 - Suggested traffic control for junction of Amor St, Pacific Hwy, bridge ramp north
RB3 - Amelioration of increased Valuation and Rates problem.
http://hornsby.wetpaint.com/page/RB3+-+Amelioration+of+increased+Valuation+and+Rates+problem.
RB4 - Draft 5 Storey Guidelines - Comments & Suggestions
http://hornsby.wetpaint.com/page/RB4+-+Draft+5+Storey+Guidelines+-+Comments+%26+Suggestions
RB5 - Amelioration of Impact for some Asquith precincts
http://hornsby.wetpaint.com/page/RB5+-+Amelioration+of+Impact+for+some+Asquith+precincts
RB6 - Additional Areas for Development, and some removals
http://hornsby.wetpaint.com/page/RB6+-+Additional+Areas+for+Development%2C+and+some+removals
Comment 26 16 Jul 2009, 6:25 PM
Now that council is concerned about the poor state of the overhead pedestrian bridge in hornsby, the lack of connectivity between east and west sides and the need for a better CBD et al, it should take this as the golden opprtunity to engage in some serious master planning underpinned by a vision. The plan can address all the issues above plus many more and in so doing create a vibrant lively centre that we would all use and also be proud of.
Lets build over the railway line. Lets create interconnected spaces, mixed use spaces that will also provide more…
Comment 26.1 17 Jul 2009, 9:05 AM
Yes, let's make sure it's done properly for the best possible end result. Not to just fill quotas shown inside circles on maps.