Sign In
or Create a new account
Precincts in Mt Colah
Council is trying to encourage more housing close to shops and train stations in Mt Colah. 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:
Housing Strategy Vol2 Pt04 MtColah Precincts (3.31 MB)
Comment 1 17 Mar 2009, 12:22 PM
We welcome the proposed development in the Mt Colah area.
The Mt Colah commercial area and some houses along Pacific Highway are extremely run down and in places derelict, ie. boarded up houses, weeds 5ft high on vacant land and commercial properties closing. This does nothing to encourage new people to the area or generate prosperity for the area.
However, if this proposal is to go ahead, we would like council to take into account the following suggestions:
1. The length of Pacific Highway between Asquith & Berowra should be improved with centre garden nature strips & kerb & guttering.
2. The current timetable for City Rail trains should be amended to improve the frequency of service (the current 30min service into the city will be insufficient for the increased population in the area)
Comment 1.1 30 Apr 2009, 11:43 PM
Centre garden nature strips & kerb & guttering the length of Pacific Highway between Asquith & Berowra would be money wasting overkill.
Comment 1.2 21 May 2009, 5:46 PM
People need to take a step back and be objective about this housing strategy.
Firstly, this has been a response by Hornsby Council to the State Governments poilcy of Urban Consolidation, a policy that was implemented by the Greiner Liberal Government some 20 years ago with bi-partisan support.
That policy clearly stated that one of its Key goals was to encourage higher densitiy development around transport hubs to minimise the expansion of Sydney.
The political opportunists who like to blame the current state government for everthing should keep this in mind.
Secondly, This Housing Stategy is a Draft document and not a done deal.Now more…
Comment 1.2.1 21 May 2009, 8:54 PM
I think that your last paragraph has touched on something significant ie "if handled correctly". There are many of us who think that this is one of the big problems with this strategy - it has not been handled correctly so far.
Because of the way it has been handled so far does not leave one with much faith of how it will be handled in the future.
With regards to best design principles there is great doubt that council will have the ability to make sound judgements on this crucial aspect unless they employ leading architectural, urban and landscape design experts to guide them and ideally design some of the new precincts. There are other local councils within Sydney that already do this.
Perhaps there is no bush destroyed by this strategy, but there is potentially a lot of other equally as important built fabric that may be destroyed. Our history, our mark on the world. It is not just the natural environment that counts but also our man made environment.
Comment 1.2.2 21 May 2009, 10:35 PM
ackerbilk, that is the most sensible and balanced comment anyone (including me) has posted on this forum. Well done!
As residents, we need to remain vigilant and engaged in the planning process from the zoning map to the DA in order to ensure the best results for our community. Simply giving this strategy the tick or cross is not enough, we must become participants in the entire process if we truly want to see quality outcomes in the local built form.
Nice work once again ackerbilk!
Comment 1.2.2.1 22 May 2009, 3:45 PM
Thanks for the compliment, It is really important to have an informed,rational and constructive debate about the housing strategy.I have lived in this shire for over 20 years and the fact is some folks don't want change and take refuge behind the blinkered idea of saying no to everything and hope it will just go away.
The conspiracy theorist are out and about with the political opportunists filling many with false hope and bad advice.I'm sure that next council elections we will have candidates from the No Development party running.
I did not go Saint Judy's meeting ,but I am keen to know what she was promising to do.
As I said before if you oppose the idea of urban consolidation then you have to put forward an alternative position.
People want to live in Sydney and we all have to accept this reality.Once upon a time there were farm paddocks and bushland where houses now stand and I'll bet that residents back then were ruing the day when housing subdivisions started going in,while at the same time moaning about the state of the roads and footpaths.
Comment 1.2.3 23 May 2009, 9:06 AM
Your comments really make sense. But I do not agree with the 5 story development. the "urban sparwl" would not matter if it is "handled correctly" and built just around the railway stations. Keep it together, not just dotted around. Have somewhere for the residents to live that do not want to look at units
Comment 1.2.3.1 27 May 2009, 4:20 PM
"Have somewhere for the residents to live that do not want to look at units"
They're only talking about rezoning two blocks in an entire suburb!
Comment 1.2.4 27 May 2009, 7:57 AM
Bushland is not limited just to national parks and remote areas. It is part of our heritage and lifestyle and is reflected in our neighbourhoods and gardens. It should be preserved for all, not just those fit and well enough for bushwalks.
Comment 1.2.4.1 27 May 2009, 4:22 PM
As mentioned elsewhere, the amount of bushland still isn't changing under this draft strategy. It still accounts for about 70% of Hornsby Shire's total area (Hornsby Shire, http://www.hornsby.nsw.gov.au/hornsbyshire/index.cfm?NavigationID=350)
Comment 1.2.4.2 28 May 2009, 2:37 AM
The plans actually identify remnant bits of bushland scattered through all the backyards. And shows how these bits of "urban" bush are to be preserved. Please check the plans.
Comment 1.2.4.2.1 14 Jun 2009, 12:00 PM
I checked, the plans do show do show remnant bits of bush, a token fraction of that existing. I wonder if these will survive after all the heavy building machinery is finished working around them.
Comment 1.2.4.2.1.1 14 Jun 2009, 2:33 PM
What are the areas of bushland still remaining that have not already been infested by exotic plants and weeds ?
Certainly the areas around my home have that interface
with the bush have been degraded to the point that only major bushland regeneration could possibly preserve it.
Just drive down the Pacific Hwy from Asquith to Mt Colah and count the number of endemic native trees still left,not the eucalypts that have planted to compensate for those removed, then add up the exotic non natives that dominate the same drive,extrapolate that throughout the rest of the urban zones we still call bushland more…
Comment 1.2.4.2.1.1.1 18 Jun 2009, 5:02 PM
What areas in Australia are not invaded by pests eg rabbits, cane toads, foxes, lantana or privit? Maybe very remote ones! Maybe your mythological bush sanctuary even.
It’s extreme to claim the environment worthless and use this to justify it’s destruction for high rise development.
Yes, these areas are not pristine, but they still contain gums, banksias, etc that provide habitats for birds, lizards possums, even wallabies. The last time I heard these are still natives.
If you are irked by a handful of signs the size of newspapers, imagine how many others feel about the site of scores of high rises. By the way, these cannot be taken down.
I have never before heard Hornsby referred to as the “urban shire”. This is not Newtown or Glebe.
I am sorry, but your argument is unbalanced and lacks proper perspective.
Comment 1.3 23 May 2009, 8:33 AM
I do not agree with the garden centre nature strips. It creates more work for the council and most that I have seen are dangerous because it blocks vision for motorists and pedestians. the commercial centre is run down, but there are many empty shops along that strip now, let alone trying to add more shops that will remain empty. I consider city rail timetables quite sufficient for my needs. Possibly more trains to stop north of Hornsby.
Comment 1.3.1 28 May 2009, 2:27 AM
Shops are gnerally rejuvenated by having added population. Can't say the small amount of development proposed for Mt Colah will do much. but it will do more for those businesses than not having new housing.
Comment 2 18 Mar 2009, 8:13 AM
How can five storey high density developments be consistent with the local environment of Mount Colah?
Mount Colah is a neighbourhood where young families move to avoid high density living, why would we wish choose to turn the suburb into another Alexandria or Waterloo ?
A better idea would to be to look at low rise accommodation that could fit within the surroundings of Mount Colah, rather than copying the designs from Botany Road.
A number of residents are going to have to get used to swapping a beautiful sunset with the back of apartments.
Comment 2.1 26 Mar 2009, 8:37 AM
Hey you know what? IF it did turn out a bit like some areas in Waterloo ie Danks St, or at least have some of the qualities it has ( good street life, mixed use, good reuse, good quality cafes and restaurants, other interesting retail, and well designed apertments) it wouldn't necessarily be such a bad thing. But it won't be anything like that.
Botany RD in Hornsby Shire would be extremely unsuitable. The only place that it could be successful is along the Pacific Highway from roughly Pearce's Corner to Hornsby CBD and perhaps George St. But council do not want to touch these areas. And I mean the good bits of the areas you mentioned, not the bleak, bulky lonely scary bits
Comment 2.1.1 26 Mar 2009, 8:46 PM
fair comment,
Comment 2.2 30 Apr 2009, 11:48 PM
You said "A number of residents are going to have to get used to swapping a beautiful sunset with the back of apartments." This is written as if it is a forgone conclusion that you will get high density housing. Write in the conditional tense e.g.'would have to get used to...' and fight it every inch of the way if you feel strongly about it.
Comment 3 18 Mar 2009, 8:41 AM
I agree that the Mount Colah shops on Pacific Hwy are in need of an upgrade. They are dilapidated at best. However I think the proposal of a five story precinct on the other side of the highway to be absolutely preposterous. It will irreversibly and detrimentally change the nature of the suburb forever. People move to Mount Colah to avoid the high rise apartments of other Sydney suburbs and it is what makes this suburb so special. Two story town houses built in a style to fit in with the surrounds would be a much better option.
How can Hornsby call themselves the BUSHLAND SHIRE anymore?
Comment 3.1 26 May 2009, 12:13 PM
This development would mean we would have to change BUSHLAND SHIRE with THE GHETTO SHIRE, as more appropriate for the ugly scene created by Hornsby Council.
Comment 3.1.1 26 May 2009, 1:45 PM
No it wouldn't. The amount of bushland in the shire is not changing at all. This plan in fact preserves the bushland character of Hornsby Shire and helps to preserve that of Sydney by removing the need for new greenfield development, such as the ridiculous proposal out at South Dural.
You also seriously misunderstand the relationship between medium to high density housing and ghettos.
Comment 3.1.1.1 28 May 2009, 1:28 PM
Will you be living next door to a five storey building
Comment 3.1.1.1.1 28 May 2009, 11:04 PM
No, but I would seriously consider moving into one of the Asquith or Normanhurst developments if they were of good quality.
Comment 3.1.1.1.1.1 29 May 2009, 8:52 AM
But not Hornsby, Thornleigh or Mt Colah or any of the others? Why not?
Well good for you! Why haven't you moved already? There are heaps of Units available in Hornsby and Waitara and you would have the benefit of 2 railway lines and lots more trains and walk to a big shopping mall and other services. Actually, if you move to a unit in Normanhurst you won't be able to walk to shops or movies etc because they won't be in Normanhurst. You will of course be able to sit in front of your computer or TV set all day playing virtual reality games where you create scenarios, like sim city type of thing. an imaginary world so to speak.
Comment 3.1.1.1.1.1.1 29 May 2009, 9:46 AM
Thanks for your constructive comments bellinid, nothing like petty insults to kick off a nice morning.
Asquith and Normanhurst are both easily walkable to Hornsby, its just that we tend to forget that when we have a car sitting in our front driveway. They have adequate train services for anyone with the ability to read the timetable and a small dose of patience.
The things you said and implied in the last half of your rant apply exactly the same to people currently living within the Normanhurst precincts in low density housing, so maybe you can think of a better targeted insult next time I make a comment.
Comment 3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 29 May 2009, 10:13 AM
Glad to be contributing to you having a good day! Easily walkable depends very much on which part of the suburb you live in. It's also kind of hilly so would not suit everyone.
Non peak services are 30 minutes apart. Trains stop at around midnight. Buying groceries generally means that you drive even if you would prefer not to, particularly if you hhave a family.
What else do you do in a unit apart from screen based activities and reading? Not gardening, woodwork, pottery or sculpting or doing stuff to your house. It does severely limit what people may want to more…
Comment 3.1.1.1.1.1.2 29 May 2009, 3:41 PM
And bellinid was the one who was calling me insensitive! I am undoubtedly agressive, but I don't think even I have yet stooped to this level of gratuitous personal insult.
Come on bellinid, some of your arguments are worth thinking about. Try to keep it that way.
Comment 3.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 29 May 2009, 9:54 PM
Richard did I touch upon something personal? Are you a computer nerd? MichaelO has been somewhat scathing of people who have houses near railway stations, or it seems houses fullstop. He seems so keen to push the virtues of living in units, one would almost think he is a developer or real estate agent! His level of personal insult has been quite high I must point out and very denigrating to many.
I think it is fair enough to point out that living in units may be quite incompatible for some people by virtue of what their interests are. Such people would go insane living in a unit, especially a non descript one in the 'burbs.
I personally don't think I was being gratuitously insulting at all and nor do others who have read these comments.
Comment 3.1.1.2 28 May 2009, 2:14 PM
South Dural is not a ridiculous proposal because it is surrounded by development. It is remnant farm land. By developing it for housing and dare I say perhaps a village centre will actually assist in densifying this general area and would also justify public transport improvements. It is also very close to another major centre - Castle Hill and all the growing employment opportunities that exist in that area. Have you heard of Norwest? Do you know what its significance is in the Metropolitan Strategy? In some ways South Dural is actually more central than say Berowra.
And lets not go on continuously about bushland, like it is THE most important factor in everything. It's just one aspect. There are many more issues equally as important, not all of which have to do with nature. This plan may or may not preserve the bushland character of Hornsby but it sure won't bring that character within cooee of most people.
And South Dural is not bushland by the way.
Comment 3.1.1.2.1 28 May 2009, 9:25 PM
But I thought you were so keen on transport oriented development before? The South Dural site is proposed at around 14 dwellings/ha, a level which is nowhere near the level needed to sustain a viable public transport system, let alone something which even slightly resembled TOD. That is indisputable and acknowledged by pretty much all transport experts in the developed world. You seem to be all for TOD everywhere except for around existing transport nodes- this makes no sense. Saying a local bus route can do the same thing as a train station is totally flawed.
The South Dural proposal has no place within the context of urban consolidation or in reducing car dependency.
If by "surrounded by development" you mean that it has residential subdivisions on its southern edge and rural residential dwellings accounting for the other two thirds of its perimeter, then you may be correct.
You also seem to have missed the large stand of bushland which is located in the direct centre of the site, and which is linked to the Elouera Bushland Reserve. By the way.
Also, in most ways Berowra is actually more central than South Dural.
Comment 3.1.1.2.1.1 29 May 2009, 8:45 AM
I said in some ways South Dural is more central than Berowra. I mentioned Castle Hill and Norwest. I also think i mentioned somewhere that South Dural could be developed with a range of housing choice and with its own local centre. Basically, it can be designed properly from the outset. Yuo just don't seem to have the ability to imagine such a thing is possible and that someone else may have the capacity to do so.
And TOD does not necessarily always have to be next to a train line. Buses are also part of what constitutes public transport. There more…
Comment 3.1.1.2.1.2 29 May 2009, 1:13 PM
I think you are referring to the Dural Nature Reserve. This is on the other side of New Line Rd. The area proposed is on the other side and bounded by New Line, Hastings and Old Northern Rds.
Comment 3.1.1.2.1.2.1 29 May 2009, 1:42 PM
No, I'm referring to the area of bushland north of Wayfield Rd within the development site (http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=&ie=UTF8&ll=-33.706937,151.022315&spn=0.004784,0.021973&t=h&z=16). That's a pretty substantial amount of bushland. I admit I haven't been past there in a while, so if that bushland has been cleared since then then I apologise.
Edit: Sorry, I don't know how to make the link work properly, the comma in the adress stuffs it up.
Comment 3.1.1.2.1.2.1.1 29 May 2009, 1:59 PM
I see where you mean. I had a look on google earth. I don't know the extent of it either. Perhaps they are intending to keep the bushland? If its good bushland they should keep it, irrespective of density. It could make for a good desing actually.
Comment 3.1.2 27 May 2009, 8:07 AM
If the dominant feature becomes comcrete monoliths as opposted to bushland, then Ghetto may be more apprepriate.
Comment 3.1.2.1 27 May 2009, 4:12 PM
I fail to see how medium-high density housing will become the dominant feature. Only 10% of the Shire is zoned for all forms of urban development, compared to approximately 70% being either National Parks or Nature Reserves. (Hornsby Council, http://www.hornsby.nsw.gov.au/hornsbyshire/index.cfm?NavigationID=350). This figure doesn't even include open space within the shire!
Furthermore, the amount of bushland will not change by one single square metre, as you can clearly see from the draft strategy.
Once again you fail to understand the meaning of the word ghetto- use a dictionary or google it.
Comment 3.1.2.1.1 27 May 2009, 4:45 PM
The key is the 2 words dominant feature. Buy your logic, the harbour bridge and opera house are not dominant features of Sydney Harbour, since they take up only a small area.
By the way, what is this google thing?
Comment 4 18 Mar 2009, 12:26 PM
Ok, agree with the comments about the commercail side of Mt Colah. It is dilapidated and needs a face lift.
The 5 story unit blocks - no way.
As others have said, you move to Mt Colah to avoid unit blocks. When we moved here 4 years ago, it was partly because there were no units, and the current zoning did not allow for them.
I do not want to look out of my front window, and see someones washing hanging from a 5 floor balcony. I like the sunset, winter sun, the trees and my privacy!
Enough complaining, what can we do to stop this ? I am not against rezoning per say, but 5 storey units - I dont think so.
Comment 5 18 Mar 2009, 12:54 PM
I strongly oppose this development for the following reasons:
* Apartment blocks are not in keeping with the character of this suburb (anyone driven through Warrawee, Lindfield etc lately?)
* I have concerns about the safety of bringing more people into Mt Colah, Mt Kuring-Gai and Berowra when there is effectively one road in, and one road out. In a bushfire situation there is roadblock and there has been no planning amongst different sectors on how to remedy this. Council needs to have an emergency plan in place for how to coordinate traffic when bushfire is in this area. You are planning on putting high-density housing right on the main escape routes.
* Agree with the previous poster about the (in)frequency of City Rail services to these stations, whats the point of putting more people in when the transport services are crap?
Comment 5.1 26 Mar 2009, 6:02 PM
Not sure I understand your comments about fire danger and roads here, there's direct northbound and southbound access to the Pacific Highway from both precincts, near direct access to the F3 from the residential precinct via Belmont Pde, as well as an alternate southbound route along Royston Pde
Comment 5.1.1 31 Mar 2009, 7:00 PM
Speaking from 36 years experience living here, whenever there is a bushfire in the vicinity, the police close the F3 and Old Pacific Hwy, close the highway at the bridge at Mt Colah, and with everyone trying to get home to the Central Coast, it becomes a giant carpark from Mt Colah to Berowra on all the roads you mention. There is no way in, out or around. My point is that additional residences would exacerbate this problem and it would be great to see all the relevant services planning for this. As Council are proposing this new development, and also have mentioned the need for some traffic planning (in Asquith) it would make sense to acknowledge the affect of additional high density housing on traffic in a bushfire prone area.
Comment 5.1.2 28 May 2009, 1:39 PM
Havent you heard about the gridlock that occurs everytime there is a fire or any other emergency on either the F3 or the Pacific Highway. Obviously you are new to the area and have never experienced any of this. Can't you remember the fires of January '94. Or are you a developer?
Comment 5.2 26 Mar 2009, 8:33 PM
Actually there is an excellent apartment development in Tryon Rd Lindfield near the station. It is contextual and actually improves the streetscape without being dominant. It is very well designed. Only thing is that the prices start at the $1,000,000 mark. We will never see anything like it in Hornsby Shire!
Comment 5.2.1 31 Mar 2009, 7:04 PM
As residents, we should have some input in what type of development happens rather than just allowing Council to whack up 5-10 storey buildings. Its important we all talk about it. What does that development look like? Would it "fit in" here? What do you like about it? What don't you like about it? Can you get photos of it and bring it to the meeting?
Comment 5.2.2 29 May 2009, 8:20 AM
Don't hold your breath, not in relation to the design, but rather the price.
These silly little two bedroom concrete boxes have crept up in price even amidst the economic downturn. Councils are milking developers for anything they can, developers in turn jack up the price.
Those in the market for a unit, consider the older style unit, roomier, windows in most rooms including bathroom & reasonable strata levy, not having to pay for the upkeep of an indoor pool or gym where only 5% of the residents may utilise.
Comment 5.3 28 May 2009, 2:33 AM
Face reailty. You know what would be likely to get you more rail services. More people. It's as simple as that.
It's probably more than 100 years since the days when they put in the rail service and then built the housing. There are just too many areas with lots of people and NO public transport for them to give much priority to adding services to a svery small population.
Comment 6 20 Mar 2009, 5:01 PM
I agree with most comments that rezoning is not a bad idea but the proposal of high-density units in this part of Sydney is ridiculous.
Roads out of Mount Colah are terrible - traffic wise (the Pacific Hwy or Pennant Hills road)
The trains - when they actually come - are usually quite full during peak times.
Has anyone also been having blackouts? Apparently, Mount Colah is towards the "end of the line" resulting in power outages (2 in the last 2 months for us and we're in the proposed residential precinct).
While I don't want to lose what Mount Colah as a suburb can offer - large backyards and quiet streets - if there is no avoiding this rezoning, then it should at least be a realistic approach not just a "let's chuck up some units... that'll fix it"
Comment 6.1 22 Mar 2009, 11:04 PM
I agree with the comments made in relation to the state of the shops in this area, they do need a revamp.
I strongly disagree with the proposed five story units. I moved here in May 08 from a country area west of Newcastle. I chose Mount Colah because it felt like living in the 'bush'.
The building of five story units will destroy the feeling of the suburb and detract from its appeal to home buyers in the future.
It will add the ghetto feel that so many Sydney suburbs have at the moment.
These apartments will cause traffic congestion in an more…
Comment 7 23 Mar 2009, 12:27 PM
Agree with most comments to date in what seems an appalling plan by the council.
New housing needs to be in keeping with the local area.
Unit blocks work in clusters, 5 stories in Mount Colah would be ugly and completely out of character. Perhaps New town houses & amenity/facility regeneration would be a more sensitive option.
In terms of blocks why not bulldoze the ugly west side of Hornsby station - an ideal place to regenerate with some decent units and amenities.
Comment 7.1 23 Mar 2009, 1:29 PM
The ugly west side of Hornsby actually has some of Hornsby's best buildings. What is needed on the west side is restoration, renovation and maybe some very carefully designed sympathetic infill. What makes it ugly is that it is down at heel and needs new life breathed into it.
Comment 7.1.1 24 Mar 2009, 12:19 AM
Some of Hornsby's best buildings need to be bulldozed especially those in the island between Station St. and Pacific Hwy and the area changed into a transport interchange for private and government buses and taxis.The airspace above the station should be used for offices and commuter parking. The buildings on the western side of the highway should also be bulldozed and replaced with modern units incorporating residential and businesses such as food outlets, cafe's, picture, drama and music theaters with underground parking. A modern international hotel could also be incorporated in the plan.
I agree with robsmith the western side of Hornsby Station should be bulldozed.
Comment 7.1.1.1 26 Mar 2009, 5:56 PM
Robsmith and PRH, you may have missed the Hornsby Westside plan council adopted in August last year, i think that might be a better solution than just bulldozing the lot of it.
http://www.hornsby.nsw.gov.au/uploads/documents/hornsbywestsideproposalwebplan1.pdf
Totally agree with your comments about commuter parking though, something to take up with Railcorp
Comment 7.1.1.2 26 Mar 2009, 8:38 PM
Why on earth would anyone go to an international standard, I presume, 5 star hotel, in hornsby of all places? Get real!
Why not use George St for modern buildings that do some of what you are saying?
Why not rationalise the excessive number of caryards and low rise businesses on the Pacific Highway and do the same there?
Comment 7.1.2 27 Mar 2009, 9:56 AM
So agreed with Bellinid, those buildings have character, they are our history.
They should be renovated and maintained.
Just imagine that area revamped into more boutique style shops with quality restaurants and cafes. That would definitely breathe more life into this area, than putting in another souless shopping centre.
We don't need to bulldoze and replace with modern all the time. We also need to retain some character and history. That's what I like about London and the European cities.
I shudder at the thought of the suggestion above.
Comment 7.1.3 28 May 2009, 2:42 AM
Probably teh best way to breathe new life into "Old Hornsby" is to bring in some new population. Rezone all blocks within 400m of Hornsby station for 3 or 5 storey units. Between 400m and 800m rezone them all for town houses or villas.
Scattered thtrough this area a re quite a few heritage buildings that will be retianed, but some new population will be brought in who can walk to "Old Horsnby" shopping centre.
Comment 7.2 28 May 2009, 2:39 AM
Why discuss Hornsby precincts in the Mt Colah discussion ?
Comment 8 26 Mar 2009, 6:10 PM
Some of the objections to the residential precinct here seem pretty weak, between the rail line and the pacific highway they're completely separated from the other residential areas in the suburb.
We really need to get past the NIMBY stuff and accept that land like this in close proximity to transport, parks and shops is exactly where new residential development needs to go. The new residents will provide a huge boost to the local shops, something that surely benefits everyone.
Comment 8.1 26 Mar 2009, 8:44 PM
The five storey unit will be placed at one of the highest parts of Mount Colah, it will become part of the skyline for generations to come.
The question is not NIMBY but how can we encourage new development to be within the environment of Mt Colah in a responsible manner.
Comment 8.1.1 27 Mar 2009, 10:01 AM
As someone stated in the Advocate's opinion section last week it probably has all mainly been done from the remoteness of zoning maps and subdivision plans.
Comment 8.1.2 31 Mar 2009, 7:07 PM
I agree with PGR. If this is going to happen, its important for us to be involved and have a say on what we as residents feel would be the best option.
Comment 8.1.2.1 29 May 2009, 3:30 PM
Actually, how many houses in Mt Colah would be able to see a 5 storey block on the highway. (that is, without standing on the roof or climbing a tree!) ?
A very lareg number would not be able to see it.
And even of those that can see it, how serious would the impact really be ?
Comment 9 7 Apr 2009, 5:44 AM
I am looking forward to seeing Mt Colah rejuvinated. Cafes, restaurants...all make for an interesting and inviting suburb to live in.
However I dread the idea of 5 storey blocks becoming the new Mt Colah skyline. I would be far happier if the development stopped at 2 or 3 stories which could blend in to the landscape.
Am also keen to hear how the Hornsby to Berowra area will accommodate the needs of a growing population. Schools are already at capacity, child care is near impossible and train services are third world as too is station parking.
I do hope the voices of Mt Colah residents are heard, we may be few in numbers but we have a beautiful suburb that we should develop with respect for our natural surroundings.
Comment 10 16 Apr 2009, 4:24 PM
The Mt Colah precinct suggested between Domino Pizzas to Caltex Service station on Pacific Highway (PH) needs a major uplifting anyway. Thats what the Council should be focusing on. Specfically stated between Parklands and Judith - A 2 -3 story with the ground level being shops , cafes etc. WOW !
With the Caveat : this needs to be actioned first.
1. Mt Colah train Station needs trains to stop there.
Especially the Gosford and Wyong services skip Mt Colah - Why ?
2. Schooling is limited and needs to be adressed.
3. Maximun 2 - 3 story.
If this gets in .. 5 story , it will spread all the way along PH just like Wahroonga & Warrawee
The reason I live in MT Colah is because it is beautifull
I say NO ! to 5 stories apratments. This will make it UGLY !
Comment 10.1 4 May 2009, 4:03 PM
Items of note: A large portion of the proposed Mount Colah precinct on the Western side of the PHwy between Judith Ave and Norththumberland is actually denoted on Council registered Maps as being in the FLAME ZONE. Portions of the precinct are also subject to a decent gradient. In addition, any new deveopment will be subject to an Acoustic Assessment given the proximity of the proposed development to the Rail transport Corridor and Classified Road (PHwy). These 3 items alone will make it rather expensive for any developer to build any form of building. Escavation costs, the use of Fire more…
Comment 11 11 May 2009, 8:16 AM
Page 2 of today's (11/05/09) SMH - PLANNING COUP FOR DEVELOPERS. Dept of Planning has been overhauled so that senior staff who were not sympathetic enough to developers have been given the boot, thus paving the way for developers to maraud Sydney like visigoths.
Check it out!
Comment 12 12 May 2009, 11:07 PM
Generally I do not believe that the is a strong argument in saying this development is out of place. Some say it will be "ugly"...Please define "Ugly", because we can hardly have any worse then the poor single store commercial buildings currently located here, beside an actual development is not yet proposed. It may be ugly, but this is all very subjective.
Has anyone stopped to workout what 5 stories is? What 18m Max. at some points across the site, fronting onto a 4 lane highway...... Hardly a ridiculous scale. Given your average single story house is in the region more…
Comment 12.1 20 May 2009, 9:55 PM
Let me guess. You live in Mount Colah but not in, or on the border of any of the proposed precincts. That or you are a DEVELOPER!!!!!!
Comment 12.1.1 26 Jun 2009, 9:40 AM
Keven07,
NO!! I am not a developer. I am a resident that agrees with the strategy of the state government for urban consolidation. I do not think that our city or the environment is served well by masses of Mcmansions being built on the out skirts of our city. This only perpetuates the car culture.
The type of development proposed here in these locations are offering a consolidation that is sustainable and can offer the communities potential to gain services.
As a resident, I believe that the focus should be on making sure the services required for the population is adequate more…
Comment 13 19 May 2009, 6:15 PM
I came to live in Mt. Colah to be overlooked by Gum trees,
NOT five story highrise!
Comment 13.1 26 Jun 2009, 9:42 AM
5 story is hardly high rise. 10 is.
Comment 13.1.1 26 Jun 2009, 11:17 AM
What do you describe the in between 6-9 storeys as?
Comment 13.1.1.1 26 Jun 2009, 6:12 PM
I would suggest it is low-rise (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-rise ) or some may suggest mid-rise if this a classification at all, but no where can I find it described as high-rise. Are we not talking 5 stories anyway?
Comment 13.1.1.1.1 26 Jun 2009, 7:29 PM
You mentioned 10 storeys. Discussion has been generally about 5 storeys so I enquired about the 4 storeys in between.
I think that calling 5 plus low rise is pushing it, seeing as how you have to have a lift. In fact anything over 3 storeys requires a lift. So it would be more correct to describe 1-3 storeys as low rise, particularly as 3 fits in with the concept of "few". It would be reasonable to describe anything a bit higher as mid-rise.
What also needs to be considered is not just the rise in storeys but the overall bulk of any given building. A squatter but lare and bulky building can have more negative impact than a higher finer more elegant one at times.
But then again, you have to also take into account the context in which any building is proposed to be placed.
Comment 13.1.1.1.1.1 28 Jun 2009, 11:13 PM
Bellinid,
I mentioned that I would define 10 stories as high rise and do not believe 5 can be considered high rise.
You have hit the nail on the head about the bulk. This makes up a big part of my argument. Poor low rise will do greater damage in this location to well designed taller buildings. At this point in the planning process I find it hard to argue against the proposal, because of this point. Once there is a real proposal on the table showing the bulk and a specific design it can then be argued one way or the other. Till then I think that these sites are appropriate for this type of development. Not the type of building we see just built along George ST in Hornsby. These are particularly bulky but are within an urban area which can accommodate this type of development.
Comment 14 21 May 2009, 1:58 PM
In the recent public housing forums held by Hornsby Councils' Planning Department, one of the posters read:
"The Challenge for Hornsby Shire:
How can council ensure an adequate supply of houses to meet state government requirements based on a predicated growing & aging population, while PROTECTING BUSHLAND, PROPERTY VALUES, EXISTING RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER and NOT OVERBURDENING ROADS & SERVICES"
By any measure, Hornsby council planning has NOT ACHIEVED ANY of its stated objective.
A five story flat roofed public housing style box building planted in the middle of predominately single story pitched roof housing is the very antithesis of the stated objective; blighting the bushland, reducing our property values, destroying the existing residential character and overburdening our roads & services!
Comment 15 22 May 2009, 11:45 PM
Our former N.S.W. Regional Director Planning Northern Metropolitan Sydney Area - our area- (now retired & living in multi storey high-rise in Sydney, commented last week about proposed 5 storey high-rise in Asquith - Mt. Colah - Mt. Kuring-gai - Berowra;
"AN OUTRAGEOUS PROPOSAL"
"TOTALLY ALIEN TO THE AREA"
"ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS"
"LACKS COMMON SENSE"
"A TOTALLY STUPID JOKE"
"THIS IS NOT BARCELONA, MADRID OR LONDON"
"IF IT HAPPENED IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THERE WOULD BE RIOTS"
Hornsby Council, (unlike Kuring-gai Council, which refused to listen), has previously undertaken good sensible planning in the shire. This new scatter-gun approach, 'one size fits all', is ridiculous".
When a top town planner with 25 years experience in the N.S.W. planning department said this - as well as the vast majority of residents- it is time for Hornsby Council to STOP TRYING TO FORCE 5 STOREY HIGH-RISE DOWN OUR THROATS & come up with a revised plan that develops our village communities instead of attempting to reduce them to the lowest common denominator.
Comment 15.1 26 May 2009, 1:50 PM
Hi redsmart, I'd be interested in reading those comments. Would you be able to provide his name or even a link to where he's said this.
Much appreciated, MichaelO
Comment 16 27 May 2009, 5:05 PM
NO LEGITIMACY—NO CONSTITUTION—NO HEAD OF POWER
The following are based not on assumptions but “officially” admitted FACTS.
The Australian Constitution DOES NOT recognise ‘local government’
Attempts by the “government” to alter the constitution to recognize ‘local government’ have failed TWICE. The last Referendum was held on the 3rd of September 1988. 67% of the population REJECTED the proposal for recognition of a third tier of “government”, namely, local “councils”.
The result of any Referendum is LAW. Despite that clear unmistakable affirmation of the Constitution by the people of Australia IN ALL STATES, the “government” (Hawke) introduced the ‘Local Government Act 1989” more…
Comment 16.1 27 May 2009, 8:23 PM
And this is relevant how exactly?
If you would care to look at the NSW Local Government Act 1993 (http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fullhtml/inforce/act+30+1993+CD+0+N#ch.1-nt.1) then you would see how the State Government delegates some of its responsibilities to Local Governments. The fact that something is not recognised in the constitution does not make it unlawful.