Sign In
or Create a new account
Precincts in Carlingford
Council is trying to encourage more housing close to shops and public transport in Carlingford. 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.
Comment 1 16 Mar 2010, 12:14 AM
Carlingford is under serviced by a lack of public transport. You can't call Carlingford railway station a transport hub. The peak hour trains have been cut and only 3 carriages in peak hr. Buses rarely turn up on time if at all. Try geeting a bus outside of peak hr. Trying to get to Epping station is a nightmare. The reports mention rd improvements will be made. Why not do it now to prove transport can cater for the current population.
In the reports no numbers are ever mentioned for Carlingford. I presume no research has been completed in this more…
Comment 1.1 16 Mar 2010, 9:17 PM
Emma, it would be nice wouldn't it if Council showed all the reasoning behind targetting a particular location.
That would of course need to include any approaches made to council by developers so we could see what is really driving things. Unfortunately some of those approaches are going to be unofficial and not even council will know about them, only particular staff members.
The planning process seems akin to the Environmental Impact Statement process, were "independent consultants" are hired to fulfil the minimum requirements for an EIS, and only report small negative impacts, or positive ones, leaving it to the local more…
Comment 1.2 17 Mar 2010, 9:55 PM
I have to agree with you emma1 - I used to live in Carlingford and you knew that if you missed a particular train in the morning you were most certainly going to be an hour late for work.
Comment 1.3 18 Mar 2010, 11:07 PM
Agree totally with your comments Emma.
The whole country is out of control. State/Federal Government are the worst this country has ever had. The hundreds of millions of dollars being wasted on concepts and projects which have no forward thinking every second day. Top this off with Councils who do not have staff with the necessary skills to make intelligent feesable decisions, and we have one big mess. Carlingford has blocked arteries in every direction and some town planner who's never worked in private enterprise decides to plonk more people in an area without trains, buses, viable car access etc.
Hopefully they might be the next to follow the likes of Warringah Council and be sacked for incompetency.
Comment 1.4 28 Mar 2010, 4:06 PM
Hi all,
I agree with Emma on her view.
The proposed locations of 5 stories apartment are surrounded by busy roads that have been congested by existing traffics. Proposed upgrades are not sufficient.
Public transport in Carlingford is close to non-existance.
I do not understand how Hornsby council can increase development of housing in an area that is under develop with public transport and roads.
I am too, not agree with Carlingford precinct development proposed by the Hornsby Conuncil.
Comment 1.5 7 Apr 2010, 11:28 AM
emma 1
I agree with your thoughts.
The numbers you seek but are hidden by HSC are Carlingford Court loss of 180 homes replaced by 824 to 1648 dwellings bringing 1236 to 2472 cars and 2,060 to 4,120 people depending on dwelling yields (HSC has taken a very conservative figure).
To this you need to add:
Hills Shire will add more than 3,476 dwellings with 5,214 cars and 8,690 people also
Parramatta Councils Ch7 and brick-pit sites will add more than 920 dwellings and 1,380 cars.
Comment 2 16 Mar 2010, 12:01 PM
In addition to what emma1 has mentioned, I think the intersection of Rembrandt St and Carlingford Rd already has a lot of congestion due to traffic around Carlingford Court. The majority of the car park entrances are on Rembrandt St.
The proposed road widening for a right hand turn lane from Rembrandt St to Carlingford Road would not fix the extra residential traffic going into Rembrandt St from cars travelling west along Carlingford Road. That intersection is the only right hand turn allowed on Carlingford Road for about 2 km.
Also the other end of Rembrandt St nearer to Dunrossil Ave is quite narrow and wouldn't be sufficient to support the extra residential traffic from higher density housing.
The other issue I have is with the Keeler St proposal. On-street Keeler parking is already used quite a bit due to Carlingford Village and businesses on Pennant Hills Rd. There's nothing in the proposal offering more parking for the businesses and offices that this rezoning would create.
Comment 2.1 28 Mar 2010, 4:12 PM
Hi all,
I would like to further express that the Keeler street, parking is already taken by shoppers at Carlingford Village, it is very apparent during lunch hours in the weekend.
All the street parkings on Keeler Street has been taken all the way up to Hepburn Ave and also parts of the Rickard Street.
By introducing units in the area will only make shoppers suffer and eventually move on to other shopping centres, which would also impact the business in the Carlingford Village.
The same issue would also applied to Carlingford Court shopping centre.
Comment 2.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 9:37 AM
Shoppers at Carlingford Court tend to park in the parking areas within the centre, not outside, so it is not quite the same situation that happens at the Village centre where shoppers park on the street.
Likewise, long term parkers don't park at the court. To stop this ever happening in the future only requires the installation of boom gates, with timed free parking like they have at many other shopping malls.
I totally agree that public transport in the area is not adequate, and that the area suffers from too much traffic. After all, it has to suffer from one big problem that plagues our shire and that is, Pennant Hills Rd.
The completion of the rail line between Epping and Carlingford is essential to make Carlingford function better, to get cars off the road. Also it would greatly benefit form peak hour bus only lanes between Carlingford and Epping and also Parramatta. And more public transport generally!
Comment 2.1.1.1 8 Apr 2010, 12:51 AM
Hi crisis
Unless you are prepared for a long walk you have to park inside the Court.
90% of CC cars enter and exit via Rembrandt St to park.
There is a constant log jam at the entrance and exit on Rembrandt St closes to Carlingford Rd because the distance between this entrance/exit and the traffic lights on Carlingford Rd is insufficient to clear traffic.
In busy periods this log jam reflects back into Carlingford Rd. The west bound right turn lane is frequently full and cannot move because of the jam at the first Rembrandt St entrance/exit. This turns Carlingford Rd more…
Comment 2.1.2 7 Apr 2010, 11:37 AM
kittle
The next thing the developers will want is a hotel so that their drunken patrons can break your letter box on their way home as they stop to urinate, vomit and defecate in your garden.
Be very afraid, follow the money trail
Frank
Comment 2.1.2.1 8 Apr 2010, 3:51 PM
Frank. parhaps a civilised wine bar a la Melbourne style would be most appropriate! People tend to not be quite so vomitous and obnoxious in such establishments unlike the noisy overlarge clubs and pubs that proliferate everywhere like an infectious disease!
Comment 2.1.2.1.1 9 Apr 2010, 2:23 PM
Another McDonalds perhaps? Is that more acceptable?
Comment 3 17 Mar 2010, 11:47 PM
I am concerned that some of the facts stated in the reports from Hornsby council as influencing why they have selected precincts maybe out of date. The traffic report Traffic Modelling was done in Feb 2008. From my own experience on Pennant Hills Rd taffic has increased since that report has been presented.
Council has not taken into account that the North West Metro will open up new traffic hubs. This should also have an impact of where to place housing.
Council have not taken into account that the Epping to Parramatta railway link has been dumped by the state government. Yes more…
Comment 3.1 7 Apr 2010, 11:51 AM
emma1,
The dwelling numbers are worse than you envisage and are hidden by HSC.
Carlingford Court loss of 180 homes replaced by 824 to 1648 dwellings bringing 1236 to 2472 cars and 2,060 to 4,120 people depending on dwelling yields (HSC has taken a very conservative figure).
To this you need to add:
Hills Shire will add more than 3,476 dwellings with 5,214 cars and 8,690 people also
Parramatta Councils Ch7 and brick-pit sites will add more than 920 dwellings and 1,380 cars.
I use the range of dwelling yields known for 5 storey developments refer HSC page Stage 3 Evaluation of Precincts page 105.
Do not be fooled by HSC Draft 5 Storey Developments, it is an architect's and planners' wet dream.
The developers will take Council to Planning and screw the maximum out of each site regardless of consequences to the overall good. That is what developers do.
Frank
Comment 3.1.1 8 Apr 2010, 11:18 PM
Frank,
that's another reason for me to object to this proposal.
Comment 4 22 Mar 2010, 1:50 PM
Sorry got my numbers wrong in the carlingford precinct the real numbers are 824 new dwellings.
Comment 5 22 Mar 2010, 6:13 PM
I think development proposal in the Rembrandt St area is poorly thought out.
1) Traffic. Rembrandt St is rapidly becoming a problem traffic area. It has increasingly become difficult to turn right into Rembrandt St from Carlingford Rd due to traffic banking back all the way to the traffic lights. Streets in the area are narrow and there is poor traffic drainage from Rembrandt St to main arterial roads. The traffic modelling is out of date.
2) Transport. Not really that close to Carlingford station (1-1.5km). The Carlingford train service is limited and I imagine a dead-end line has a finite capacity. more…
Comment 5.1 28 Mar 2010, 4:16 PM
Hi All,
I also objects to the current proposed development by Hornsby Council.
If they were to change the proposal into maximum 2 stories Townhouses, I would still support it.
but as of today, the proposal by Hornsby council will only create more issues in the Carlingford area for residents like us residing in Carlingford and Epping suburb.
Comment 5.1.1 8 Apr 2010, 11:31 PM
Yes, duplex or townhouse will be acceptable.
Comment 5.2 7 Apr 2010, 12:00 PM
Wayne,
During the Phase One 92009)examination of suitable sites the area around Pennant Parade and North Rocks Rd were examined for 5 storey developments.
Common sense won the day and it was rejected because of lack of transport which is number one on the State Governments and Councils criteria.
HSC has conveniently overlooked this when nominating the Carlingford Court precinct.
Frank
Comment 6 25 Mar 2010, 7:47 PM
Hornsby Council is being pressured like so many others to accomodate the new "BIG AUSTRALIA" Policy being pushed by Federal & State Labor.
We simply have to find places to house the 180,000 new migrants that make Australia home and our "natural" population growth.
Sydney is a huge magnet for new arrivals - my parents came out in the 1950s and I'm glad they did.
But Government then seemed to have a little more foresight.
They built rail and road to deal with the current and growing population.
Our collective Governments have had ample notice of our growing population. Yet they delay basic infrastructure more…
Comment 6.1 28 Mar 2010, 4:35 PM
Hi John,
I do not agree with you on the idea on the "high rise" building, it will not give government pressure to build better transportation systems in the area. Well, at least not in the foreseeable years.
Also, the Hornsby council has very little control over where the State government spent their money on building rails and roads. By agreeing to the proposal and accepting things will get worse is not really a wise idea. Especially there will be no timeline defined for public transport upgrades.
By looking at the suburbs Hornsby Council manage, I do not understand why they would pick Carlingford, which is an area that is already packed out, to further development.
Carlingford as a suburb has under-developed transportations, rail is poor, buses is close to un-usable and most of my neighbours uses cars to and from work or Epping station as a hub.
I really question how Hornsby council decide, did they just pick a location in the map and hope it is ok? Did they actually do any real studies before hand?
Anyway, I disagree with Hornsby council's proposal over all.
Comment 6.1.1 14 Apr 2010, 10:23 PM
Hello Kittle,
If the Rudd's new multitudes need somewhere to live, then High-Rise near train or over train stations is the quickest "solution". It meets none of our pre-concieved ideas on quality of life, but it would be a first "home" for new-comers & the newly poor.
If we DON'T provide cheap affordable private housing, with the incentives for developers to quickly build these horrible places then we will ultimately be struck with a huuuge PUBLIC HOUSING bill.
They have to have somewhere to live - do you want to pay via your tax for more public housing or provide apartments below the Sydney Median price and improve affordability?
We really do need 20 - 60 storey apartment blocks towering over rail lines near stations. (which rules Carlinford out).
Comment 6.2 29 Mar 2010, 9:39 AM
Building over the railway at Hornsby would be a good idea. Have you seen St Leonards station?
Comment 6.2.1 7 Apr 2010, 1:57 PM
Hi crisis,
A good idea!
The section 94 money from this type of development could relieve financial pressures on Hornsby Shire Council to
* Replace RTA pedestrian bridge to Westfields
* Replace Hornsby Aquatic Centre
* Start on Old Man's Valley sport and recreation facilities.
I feel great sorrow for the residents of Hornsby, Asquith and Waitara for the load they are shouldering. I cannot express my discuss at how I feel about Normanhurst "not in my back yard" residents. Take away their rail station for the common good.
Frank
Comment 6.2.1.1 7 Apr 2010, 2:30 PM
I think that is an appalling and unfair statement Frank that you have just made about Normanhurst residents. You don't know what Normanhurst residents said against development in their area. Also don't you think that the residents of the other suburbs you feel sorrow for are also exhibiting "not in my backyard" sentiments?
And what is this about taking away Normanhurst station for the common good? That is ridiculous petty and spiteful.
I think a really good site for rezoning would be around the shops at the end of North r
Rocks Rd and all around the Murray Farm Rd area and behind Carlingford High school. like around Careel avenue. Build it up and the buses will come I say! Who knows maybe the north west rail line can be designed to have a station there!
Are you familiar with the area I am talking about?
Comment 6.2.1.1.1 8 Apr 2010, 1:06 AM
Hi bellinid,
Your reply says it all, you do not know what you are talking about.
Frank
Comment 6.2.1.1.1.1 8 Apr 2010, 3:53 PM
I know perfectly well what I am talking about Frank and I think you do too!
Comment 6.2.1.1.1.1.1 9 Apr 2010, 2:26 PM
Environment and Energy Services NSW Department of Public Works and Services
Comment 6.2.1.1.1.2 9 Apr 2010, 2:30 PM
You do not live in Normanhurst and have nothing to do with the area so you do not know what the residents said. Methinks your reply says it all, you do not know what you are talking about!
Comment 6.2.1.1.1.2.1 13 Apr 2010, 10:01 AM
bellinid - you don't live in Hornsby, Waitara, Carlingford or Asquith so you have nothing to do with the areas either and you don't know what residents said either
Comment 6.2.1.1.1.2.1.1 13 Apr 2010, 10:17 AM
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect the views of other users
Comment 6.2.1.1.1.2.1.2 13 Apr 2010, 4:04 PM
Sorry xfactor but you are getting away from yourself there. I told my friend Frank of Beecroft that his statement about Normanhurst was unfair as he does not know what Normanhurst residents had said about rezoning. Additionally, I have never claimed to know what residents of other areas have said.
As for me not living in the suburbs you listed, well nor do you, apart from maybe one. Therefore you have nothing to do with these areas and Normanhurst either. I think your implied suggestion in your last comment is that I should refrain from saying anything about other areas. In more…
Comment 6.2.1.1.1.2.1.2.1 23 Apr 2010, 9:35 PM
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users
Comment 6.2.1.1.1.2.1.2.2 24 Apr 2010, 1:32 PM
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users
Comment 6.2.1.1.1.2.1.2.2.1 24 Apr 2010, 1:46 PM
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users
Comment 6.2.1.1.1.2.1.2.2.1.1 24 Apr 2010, 1:53 PM
Thankyou Kashmir.
BWD wrote these wise words on the 4th of April. BWD is NOT from Normanhurst. "This Strategy is designed to encourage different suburbs to turn on each other. The old Roman "divide and conquer" theory. The common thread between us is fear, anger and helplessness which is causing this. Otherwise I don't think any of us would wish anything detructive on our Shire neighbours".
I do not know Carlingford and therefore cannot add anything helpful to your cause only to wish you all luck in the coming months.
Comment 6.2.1.1.1.2.2 24 Apr 2010, 4:09 PM
I think that Frank should get his facts straight before making such strong opinions. His tirade against Normanhurst is very offensive and unhelpful to anyone.
Comment 6.2.1.1.1.2.2.1 25 Apr 2010, 12:53 PM
You have got to be kidding!!!!!!
I'll say it again. I was NOT being offensive in anyway.
All I was trying to say was that it is a shame that there have been some inaccurate comments made with regards to the residents of Normanhurst. Please check your facts. Unfortunately, people have read some of these comments and taken them as truths when they are untrue. Normahurst residents conducted themselves in an admiral way, disputed the facts within in the strategy as they related to Normahurst, and supported other residential areas. Again, good luck with your quest to avoid rezoning within the Carlingford Area.
Comment 6.2.1.1.2 20 Apr 2010, 3:33 PM
If you mean behind the high school where the ovals are, this is not council land. The coumnity had to fight to not get the ovals fenced off when the Dept of Ed were putting up fences.
"Not in my back yard" applies to what just about everyone in Hornsby council is saying.
Why not decentralization? what about the Orange/Bathurst growth centre that was all the talk in the seventies. What about incentives to move out over the blue mountains?
Yes there is something past the Blue mountains. Life does exist. Alot less stressful and relaxing, with fresh air.
Why not fast express trains to other centres. Move large coorporations outside of the metro area.
Take away Normanhurst station , ok selfish but the country people didn't have any options when the state govenment stopped freight trains. Then stopped the passenger trains past Dubbo, passengers then go by coach.
Suggesting North Rocks Rd area of Carlingford/Beecroft at this point of time is silly. If Normanhurst have a luxory of a train station they should be subject to there fair share of the housing proposal.
Comment 6.2.2 14 Apr 2010, 10:24 PM
St Leonards is an excellent examle of how a win-win can come out of selling off some un-used airspace over a yukky rail station.
Comment 7 28 Mar 2010, 2:59 PM
I do not agree with the 5 stories proposal in Carlingford.
I live in Keeler street, as of today, the traffics on Keeler Street is already very congested, here are some examples:
1. Keeler Street and Pennant Hills Road Intersection - during peak traffic hours, that intersection always have at least 8-10 cars backed up.
I cannot imagine if there are 5 stories units along Keeler street, that will just increase the car traffics into Pennant Hills road dramatically.
2. Hepburn Ave and Carlingford Road Intersection - during peak traffic hours, the intersection are filled with cars trying to turn out more…
Comment 7.1 28 Mar 2010, 4:24 PM
Hi all,
I am totally agree with Raymund's view.
May be blocking right turn traffic from Carlingford road into Hepburn Ave will improve the situation a bit but still won't be enough to address the increase in population traffics.
Also, the issue with the intersecion of Keeler Street and Pennant Hills road is getting quite out of control. The wait over there is quite bad as well.
Therefore, I would also "Disagree" with the Hornsby Council's development proposal!
Comment 7.1.1 7 Apr 2010, 12:12 PM
Hi kittle,
Take a camera out and photo each intersection, they all clog up at certain periods during the whole week.
Council will not release their traffic report, Freedom of Information may yield this information but time is not on our side.
If you ask the planners they say:
there will have to be extra lanes added to Pennant Hills Rd and Carlingford Court (an RTA prerogative).
there will be a need for bus lanes added to Pennant Hills Rd and Carlingford Rd (again an RTA prerogative so that they cannot talk about it.
Pennant Hills Rd is the main highway from Melbourne, Canberra, Woolongong to Newcastle and Brisbane, how stupid is that.
Frank
Comment 8 5 Apr 2010, 7:23 PM
I have a question, are there any controls on the minimum number of properties or sqm required for these 5 story developments, and how many blocks could be left out of a development. Can the developers build on 5 blocks and then leave out one house and start on the next 5 houses??? I have searched everywhere and can't find any guidlines...
Comment 8.1 7 Apr 2010, 12:26 PM
Hi rosso
Refer to HSC Stage 3 Evaluation of precincts pages 103 to 106 for the best estimates that the Planners can use.
Look at the HSC Draft 5 Storey Development Controls Appendix page 181 onwards.
Note that HSC has used a very conservative dwelling yield of 75 dwellings per hectare, however in practice developers drag these out to 81 to 180 dwellings per hectare.
When you look at HSC 5 Storey Development Controls Draft please realise that this is the "wet dreams" of Architects, Councillors and Planners, IT WILL NOT and DOSE NOT HAPPEN in PRACTICE.
There is a high amount of developments that will prove me right.
Frank
Comment 8.1.1 8 Apr 2010, 3:59 PM
Actually Frank. unlike you I did not find the 5 storey Draft sexy at all!
But if you are actually trying to be critical of the ability of design specialists to come up with reasonable design solutions then who do you suggest would be able to better do it? An allied engineering services professional such as an electrical engineer?
I thought they come into the picture a little later in the design development process.
Comment 8.1.1.1 9 Apr 2010, 2:32 PM
Can someone please illuminate me on how an electrical engineer would be involved in the early stages of a design such as a masterplan or a building that is not a substation please?
I am really interested to know. Thanks!
Comment 9 7 Apr 2010, 1:53 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 10 8 Apr 2010, 7:10 PM
Some Councillors have been saying to protesting and angry residents and ratepayers that the proposed redevelopment will to take place over twenty-five years and there will be plenty of time for residents to adjust to the construction of five storey apartment buildings Furthermore, nothing will happen if residents-ratepayers do not sell their property to developers.
Such comments are nonsense and an insult to people.
If during this 25 year period your neighbour sell their property and a developer erects a five storey apartment block beside (or near) your home, then your privacy, your house and backyard are immediately affected and compromised. Furthermore, more…
Comment 10.1 9 Apr 2010, 2:35 PM
I actually think we should be protesting beyond council. If council just says no the state government will step in like they did in Kuringgai. Then we are all stuffed!
Comment 11 8 Apr 2010, 10:13 PM
Carlingford Court precincts would be an ideal. Where else in the Precincts in Carlingford can you build more housing?
Sydney has a severe shortage of housing. As a result a lot of people are under heavy pressure due to lack of housing.
Many people don’t like living out in outer Western Sydney where there are virtually no public transport. Also new land release is slow and it is more costly then redeveloping existing sites.
We all need to share the burden. At the same time we should lobby State Government to provide better transport strategy for Sydney to cope with increase in population density. Such as starting unfinished Epping to Parramatta rail link via Carlingford as soon as possible.
Comment 11.1 14 Apr 2010, 10:21 AM
I support in general "jbbst1's" comment that Sydney's population is increasing, more residential accommodation needs to be built, some people wish to live in our district, and we residents need to accept that our residential density will rise in the future.
In answer to "jbbst1's" question, “Where else in the Precincts in Carlingford can you build more housing?”. The land presently used for hobby-farming and as electricity sub-station along Jenkins Road.
However, I do not understand with this person’s comment that "we need to share the burden". We the current residents paid for what we have today and why should we give more…
Comment 11.2 20 Apr 2010, 3:17 PM
Carlingford would be ideal IF
1. epping /parramatta rail link ever goes through
2.have you jhbst1 ever tried to catch public transport from arround the Carlingford area.
3.We may as well be living in the Western suburbs being on the edge of 3 council areas -Parramatta, Hornsby and The Hills
4.do you know what the Hills council has proposed for the Western side of Pennant Hills Rd
5.There is so much infrastructure that is required by both council and state government, I don't think they are in the financial situation to make it work.
Comment 12 9 Apr 2010, 11:15 PM
Hi all,
I initially was under the impression that my objection would be heard from this discussion site.
However, I was told by one of the protesting group that this forum was not considered as the main way of objection.
Therefore, if you are serious about complaining about the Hornsby Council planning for Carlingford area, please make sure you send e-mail with the following details:
E-mail Address: Housing@hornsby.nsw.gov.au
Attention to: The General Manager
or post to: The General Manager, Hornsby Shire Council, PO BOX 37, Hornsby 1630.
Hope this helps.
Comment 13 12 Apr 2010, 8:54 PM
I think it is quite irresponsible and shameful (not that anyone in Hornsby Council or the relevant State Government departments and ministers would acknowledge) to put forward a proposed residential re-development plan without stating first how various public infrastructure facilities, utilities and public services will be addressed to handle an increase in residential density; and instead, saying that the current situation is satisfactory whilst knowing otherwise.
The residents know and Hornsby Council knows and the State Government authorities know or should know that public infrastructure facilities, utilities and public services in the Hornsby’s proposed residential re-development areas surrounding Carlingford Court Shopping more…
Comment 14 14 Apr 2010, 11:00 PM
I object to the proposed re-zoning of the Carlingford Precinct in the Hornsby Shire Housing Strategy proposed by Hornsby Shire Council (the Council).
Re: Planning Context
The Northern Sydney Subregional Planning Strategy prepared by the Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (NSROC) acknowledges that the achievement of projected population, housing and employment growth within the region requires the delivery of major infrastructure and services to facilitate the growth. Obviously the current transport infrastructure in Carlingford is not coping with the current and the planned growth in population. The major transport projects identified in the draft North Subregional Strategy include the Parramatta to more…
Comment 14.1 16 Apr 2010, 9:10 PM
This is only a place to air your views, which I totally agree with. Remember to email, fax or write to Council
Comment 14.1.1 18 Apr 2010, 10:37 PM
I certainly agree with the views objecting to this ill-thought proposal to re-zone parts of Carlingford. There is no 'real' public transport there at all, the streets are narrow and at times congested already. There is a LACK of sufficient green space in the walkable vicinity. There is a LACK of schooling capacity in the walkable vicinity. This all leads to more cars on the narrow, congested streets and as Council acknowledges itself, more rat-runs. Does anyone want more impatient drivers speeding through backstreets to make trip to Epping station (as that is the ONLY viable transport option), to fight it out for an already inadequate number of car spots? How safe is that for our children? How safe is that for anyone? It's not. I support planned development, that is accompanied by adequate public transport and other infrastructure. I understand the Council has a need to identify potential areas. This is NOT one of them!
Comment 14.1.1.1 18 Apr 2010, 10:38 PM
Will there be any further public demonstrations on this matter? I would like to attend, as would numerous concerned residents in my area.
Comment 14.1.1.1.1 20 Apr 2010, 9:45 PM
I suggest you join epping civic trust, this will give you a greater understanding of what is happening in the area. Especially if you attend the monthly meetings.
Comment 15 22 Apr 2010, 10:24 AM
The Carlingford precincts and surrounding areas has already outgrown itself and could not possibly cope with any more people and cars that the proposed 5 storey high rise developments would bring.
Our schools have reached full capacity, it's much harder to see your local doctor, the roads are extremely busy and chaotic, especially Rembrandt Street, Carlingford Road going onto Pennant Hills Road and down to Beecroft Road in peak hour traffic. Traffic in and out of Carlingford Court is chaotic and finding a parking spot is near impossible. There are no businesses in the local area to accommodate more people and more…
Comment 16 22 Apr 2010, 10:44 AM
In addition to the 5 storey high rise development have the Council approved the proposed unit development on Anthony Street and near the corner of Ross Street, Carlingford?
Comment 17 24 Apr 2010, 3:08 PM
To everyone who has been so critical of Normanhurst and accusing Normanhurst residents of having nominated Linda St Hornsby, Asquith, Waitara, Carlingford and anywhere else inappropriate, please read the following list taken directly from Volume 3 - Report on Submissions
Normanhurst submissions - Alternative Locations suggested:
Hornsby Westfield
Hornsby West Side
George Street, Hornsby
Pacific Highway, Waitara
Epping Town Centre
Beecroft Shopping Village
Pennant Hills shops
NOWHERE ARE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREAS MENTIONED.
SO PLEASE APOLOGISE!
Comment 17.1 25 Apr 2010, 1:05 PM
Thankyou Bellinid. As you can see, nowhere in Carlingford was suggested!
Again, residents of Normanhurst conducted themselves in an admiral way & did not recommend any residential areas.
We have experienced similar feelings of fear, anxiety and anger towards the housing strategy. At no time, did we knowlingly suggest that other people in residential areas be disadvantaged to save our selves.
Again, good luck with your quest to save Carlingford from rezoning.
Comment 17.1.1 25 Apr 2010, 5:33 PM
Thank you matilda2 for always being such a polite and well reasoned forum participant!
I also wish to say the best of luck to Carlingford in their quest to protect their suburb.