Sign In
or Create a new account
Precincts in Beecroft
Council is trying to encourage more housing close to shops and train stations in Beecroft. Do you support this approach? Do you have any comments?
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
Relates to
document:
Beecroft precincts (2.243 MB)
Comment 1 17 Mar 2010, 1:17 PM
There is just sufficient car parking available (approx 210 spaces) within Beecroft Village to justify people driving to the village instead of going elsewhere. If any of the existing large car park spaces, especially that over and around the module (97 spaces, nearly half of the total) is removed during development, the village as a shopping and community centre would be unviable unless or until alternative parking is provided. Once people get out of the habit of coming to the village, the village will die. A viable parking plan is needed to show how development will be managed during any approved redevelopment.
Comment 2 24 Mar 2010, 11:05 AM
If development of the Beecroft Shopping Precinct is allowed piecemeal, one new block at a time, with no overall plan for interim access and parking during demolition and construction, this would kill the village. We need a Master Development Plan for the whole precinct, covering traffic, parking, pedestrian (especially school children) safety, etc, along with a proposed timescale for implementation. We could then make an informed opinion on the proposal.
Hornsby Shire advises that the present housing strategy is only the first phase of plans to provide the full 11,000 new residences required in the shire by NSW government. Deferring rezoning of Beecroft would give time for such a Master Development Plan to be produced, on which the residents of Beecroft and Cheltenham could confidently vote.
Meanwhile Beecroft should be removed from the list of precincts for this tranche of the plan.
Comment 3 24 Mar 2010, 8:55 PM
Beecroft is a special and thriving village that needs to be preserved - not turned into a commercial centre that is the same as any other suburb. The shops here are viable because the local community supports them. Change the community, threaten the shopping precinct's future. Duplex, granny flats, townhouses, two storey developments - they have their place in Beecroft. Five story developments? They will fundamental alter for the worse what is one of the regions best localities.
Comment 3.1 26 Mar 2010, 2:58 PM
Its your time Beecroft! Everyone else (in the HSC) currently carries the load of accommodating our population, please explain to my why Beecroft should not be included in this?
Comment 3.1.1 12 Apr 2010, 5:30 PM
This is true, all of Hornsby and Ku-Ring-Gai have had huge changes as part of "taking one for the team" Beecroft should be no different. As a plus all the higher density units will block out the noise form the railway.
Comment 3.1.1.1 22 Apr 2010, 10:10 AM
Sorry? Taking what for whose team?
What is happening in Kuring-gai is criminal. It's an idealogical war by a Labor govt who believes that people who bought property around 100 year old infrastructure should live in an environment similar to other crowded, treeless [Labor] suburbs with railway stations. Which govt has a mandate for excessive population growth and urban infill? How credible is it that we could afford rail infrastructure when our population was a small fraction of what it is today, and yet we are apparently repeatedly incapable of building a rail line to the North West development region?
It more…
Comment 3.2 12 Apr 2010, 8:48 PM
I think you are getting a bit carried away there. There are some shops on Wongala crescent that have a heritage listing, as does the old Post Office and Beecroft is quite pleasant to visit. But realistically many of the commercial buildings are hardly great architecture, just a good scale. The module is quite ugly and in dire need of improvement or demolition.
You have some apartments already and they are not 2 storey or less, nor are they a problem. Some of the shops don't do so well and have changed hands a number of times. This is surely a sign that the local community has been less supportive over time. The proposed development will help the village instead of hinder it.
Comment 4 7 Apr 2010, 1:54 AM
Planners really shouldn't stop at 20 storeys to house the masses that are arriving to satisfy an excited Mr Rudd & his "Big Australia" desire.
Have we observed what is happenning in the Sydney CBD and fringe areas? Young student populations, on study visas need to keep close to the many "International" schools & colleges that have sprung up providing questionable courses. These same students ARE being housesd in high-rise apartments such as World Square & Paddy's Markets 3 or 4 people per bedroom.
This is all with the approval of building managers. 2 bedroom apartments with 8 students paying $100 - more…
Comment 5 23 Apr 2010, 10:09 PM
Re: Beecroft Village Commercial Precinct Proposed Redevelopment
We are extremely concerned about the proposed redevelopment of the Beecroft Village commercial precinct.
The objectives of the housing strategy are to:
1. PLAN FOR INCREASED HOUSING CAPACITY TARGETS IN EXISTING AREAS (C1.3)
2. FOCUS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AROUND CENTRES, TOWN CENTRES, VILLAGES AND NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRES (C2.1)
3. PROVIDE SELF CARE HOUSING FOR SENIORS AND PEOPLE WITH A DISABILITY (C2.2)
4. PROVIDE A MIX OF HOUSING (No C2.3)
5. RENEW LOCAL CENTRES TO IMPROVE ECONOMIC VIABILITY AND AMENITY (C3.1)
6. IMPROVE THE AFFORDABILITY OF HOUSING (C4.1)
We object to the following aspects:
1. Five storey mixed of residential flats, offices. Business and retail premises within the commercial centre and 5 more…
Comment 5.1 24 Apr 2010, 9:49 AM
Your point 1(a) is appalling! - "a prestigious and aspirational area"! So do you think the aspirationalists deserve special and better treatment than the common masses that live in other suurbs?
Beecroft is a well developed village offering a variety of services and amenities. There are already multi level buildings in and adjacent to the commercial area with more developments in various stages of being built.
The proposal by council is appropriate because it is consistent with what is in Beecroft already and with what will be there shortly. If anything it will improve it as a centre because as we more…
Comment 5.1.1 25 Apr 2010, 12:53 AM
A touch sensitive are we? I am merely stating a fact that Beecroft is a prestigious suburb and as such deserves a planning policy that does not turn it into soulless clone of some ideologues idea of a suburb for non aspirational plebes!
To suggest that "The proposal by council is appropriate because it is consistent with what is in Beecroft already and with what will be there shortly." is absolute rubbish, there are no 5 storey buildings in Beecroft.
Comment 5.1.1.1 25 Apr 2010, 11:34 AM
Sounds like you are the one who is a touch sensitive! Beecroft is a nice enough suburb and I would not want to see it made less pleasant.
But I think we can agree that many parts of the commercial area are past their use by date and do not exactly enhance the village atmosphere or add to the perceived prestigiousness of the area. Better quality and better planned and designed buildings will add to the value of your area and will make it a better place. And I would say that given that any new higher density dwellings in more…
Comment 5.1.2 27 Apr 2010, 9:41 AM
Point 1a is not appalling. All this talk about everyone "having to do their bit" is pathetic. No one yet has described where this "urban infill" mandate came from.
Just because it became a pronouncement from one of the lamest governments this country has ever seen, does not make urban infill some ethical, idealogical gospel. This same lame government is neither providing funds, land or zoning to add facilities (eg. sports grounds, parks, schools with real playgrounds) to cope with infill population. Thus, urban infill is a policy of lifestyle erosion as the additional population competes for the same finite more…
Comment 5.1.2.1 27 Apr 2010, 11:48 AM
Point 1a is appalling, describing Beecroft as prestigious and aspirational, with its inference that other areas are poor quality! In any case, the word "aspirational" is more commonly used as criticism of someone, something, or somewhere. Therefore, I actually find it amusing that RichardT would use this word to describe the area.
Anyway, point 1a is not talking about everyone having to do their bit, or about urban infill mandate.
As for the current state government being pretty lame, I have to agree that it has become quite a disappointment. But don't forget that equally as lame, or perhaps worse have been more…
Comment 5.1.2.1.1 27 Apr 2010, 2:14 PM
I am not interested in which political parties were in control of previous lame governments. The current Labor state govt is useless - apart from apparently successfully convincing a number of people on these forums that it is some mysterious moral responsibility for us to share the lifestyle erosion associated with urban infill.
Until anyone satisfactorily answers the question about where the extra population is going to play sport and be schooled, then urban infill is a policy of lifestyle erosion. As I have said elsewhere on this forum, the local soccer club is seriously considering capping its membership due more…
Comment 5.2 24 Apr 2010, 10:32 AM
ASPIRATIONAL = AMBITIOUS. Are you suggestig that non-Beecroft dwellers are somehow lesser beings? Lazy uneducated slobs or something?