Council has rushed this through in an underhanded manner without any proper community consultation, particularly from potentially affected stakeholders.

The urban design analysis was a farce, simply giving council the answers council wanted and its only purpose was to be seen to satisfy this criteria so that the whole process had a considered "designed" feel about it. For a $50,000 fee, the urban design consultants could only have raced through the precincts in a blur much like a "Europe - 10 countries in 10 days tour" would be like.

There were glaring mistakes made. For example, in Normanhurst, Denman Pde was listed as a collector road for the Buckingham Ave precinct when it is in actual fact a minor local road. Denman Pde is a collector road only for the section from the shops to Edwards Rd. The two Normanhurst precincts were listed as being housing estates of circa 1930-55. The subdivisions were actually created in 1914 and construction on houses such as my own commenced before the end of the First World War. Others were built a little later, in the 1920's and 30's, with the remaining blocks being filled after the war. Hence it is not actually a housing estate which is more correctly described as a residential area where the houses were all planned and built at the same time often in similar style. Perhaps it was deliberate to describe the precincts as such as the term often has negative connotations such as "public housing estate", thus making the areas seem less valuable and thus more expendable.

It is also both interesting and disturbing that under property capitalisation the houses were at best described as being in reasonable condition for the older brick ones in Normanhurst Rd precinct whilst absolutely no description of the condition of the homes in the Buckingham Ave precinct was made. Obviously as with almost anywhere, there is a range of conditions present but one thing that was not mentioned was the fact that most of the oldest brick character homes have been well restored and also extensively, and expensively sympathetically extended, in fact much more so than many of the older homes in Normanhurst's so called premier street Eaton Ave. Therefore the capitalization in these two areas is actually quite high, higher than the Normanhurst mean and making them two of the highest capitalized of the targetted precincts. By contrast much humbler areas such as the lone Hornsby one were at times described as having housing that was cared for and in good condition!

The urban design analysis also often failed to see which were old houses and which were newer ones. Anything rendered was described as a newer home when in fact there is actually only one new home that is rendered, with the remaining rendered dwellings ranging from pre 1920 to perhaps 1950's.

This may seem minor but what it reflects is a serious lack of genuine design observation on the part of the urban designers. There was no assessment of the particular nature and character of any place, no value put on the existing, just the same dry bland descriptions and strategies from one precinct to the next.

Inevitably what all this results in is the same bland predictable solutions in all areas. Solutions that unfortunately often fail to be sympathetic to the neighbourhoods into which they have been dropped.

And so we all lose out in the end

I support more housing near amenities and transport links but not when it destroys precious urban fabric that can never be replaced and definitely not when it is the NSW state government's solution to avoiding proper transport infrastructure planning and implementation.

Even so, there are still questions to be asked about why Hornsby council has not used this as an opportunity to:

1. Revitalise Pennant Hills CBD (sorry your "too complex at this point in time" excuse just does not wash!)

2.Ditto Thornleigh

3. Take advantage of the fact that the area between Thornleigh and Pennant Hills Stations is accessible by foot to both

4. And finally turn the so-called "jewel in the crown" - Hornsby into a proper vibrant urban place.

Oh but there is so much much more...

Very disappointing Hornsby!

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

http://hornsby.wetpaint.com/page/RB1+-+Asquith+Shopping+Centre+%E2%80%93+Council+can+and+must+be+Pro-Active

RB2 - Suggested traffic control for junction of Amor St, Pacific Hwy, bridge ramp north

http://hornsby.wetpaint.com/page/RB2+-+Suggested+traffic+control+for+junction+of+Amor+St%2C+Pacific+Hwy%2C+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