Precincts in Normanhurst

A lot of what I said in the Hornsby Section is actually pertinent here.

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 completely agree with the previous comments. Council has gone about this in a very sneaky manner, with absolutely no consultation with the actual residents. The Normanhurst area cannot cope with high density housing and it will destroy the character of the area. Council says they are keeping new developments 'in character' with surrounding areas, but this is certainly NOT the case in Normanhurst. The only developments around here other than houses are a few townhouses and villas. I certainly don't see any 5 storey unit blocks, nor do I ever want to!

It is amazing that you can own your own home, yet by the stroke of some politician's pen, your whole world can be changed. If they think living in units is so great, why don't they live in them?? I certainly don't see any councillor's streets being rezoned.

Many residents have lived most of their lives in this area and completed extensive renovations and it is unjust for this to be thrown at them. Others have bought here because they love the area and some families have been here for generations. Whatever the background we are all united in the fact that no-one wants this rezoning, no-one wants to sell, we are staying!

Council should do their research properly and choose more sensible areas to satisfy their housing strategies. Why don't they use the old tip site? It's been sitting there empty so long it should be ready to be built on soon enough.

As a long time resident (over 30 years), who was born here and is going to stay, I say:

Get Involved, Lets Fight This Together, Our Homes are Worth Fighting For!!!

The proposed rezonings for Normanhurst are inappropriate and unjustifiable given the low density characteristics of this suburb. The absence of any detailed assessment of the local area or the capacity of the suburb to absorb more dwellings (not through high rise)as a whole has not been explored. Council and its consultants have taken the laziest and simple option.

Start lobbying - the B Ward Councillors (Deputy Mayor Steven Evans lives in Westleigh), our local State Member - Barry O'Farrell. Annoy the Mayor everytime you see him, etc. Start preparing detailed submissions objecting to the proposals. Attend as many community meetings as possible and get vocal.

This will be a difficult fight as the Council has to comply with State Government requirements, otherwise they run the risk of Minister for Planning intervention (eg Kuring-gai).

I have read in today's Advocate that the rezoning information sessions will be held in May. On three dates (5th, 12th, 14th), there is both an afternoon and evening session.

However there is NO evening session for Thornleigh on 7th May, just an early afternoon one. That is very unfair and discriminates against the working residents from Carlingford, Pennant Hills, Thornleigh, Normanhurst and Waitara. Who made that decision and why??

I agree that the rezoning of the streets in Normanhurst to 5 storey blocks is not suitable for that area and it is insane to destroy housing in such good condition and in such a lovely environment. However, I think if we just put forward an argument that we don't want 5 storey blocks in our area, that is not going to get us anywhere. The aim of the new housing policy is to actually put in high density housing in areas that do not previously have that type of housing that are close to amenities such as public transport. This is to accomodate, for the growing older population and young couples. Unfortunatly the council has gone about this planning in the most unimaginative way possible. I suspect that these streets have been chosen because they are the ones that are the most desireable in Normanhurst and give developers the most profit when they sell. 5 Storey apartments again will be more profiteable for the developers.

If we want to stop these streets from being rezoned then we have to come up with extremely strong arguments against it (not just that we don't like 5 storey apartments) and also evaluate and maybe propose alternatives.

1) Are there any other areas in Normanhurst that would be more suited to putting up new housing (perhaps more run-down properties on the busier roads which are less likely to suffer from the congestion that will arise in the chosen streets) or are there areas in Normanhurst where there are residents that want redevelopment?

2) Would we be happier if the rezoning were downgraded to townhouses which would not be so obtrusive and not devalue neighbouring properties (so less likely to cause people to sell when they don't want to)?

3) The council has gone for a rezoning policy of specific streets rather than spread throughout the area, they claim that this leads to less uncertainty and less environmental impact. Would spreading the buildings throughout the area so no one area is 'ghetoized' be better? This occurs in areas like Mosman, where there are higher buildings spread out amongst the houses.

Don't forget, this is only the first wave of rezoning. There is another wave coming and I bet that the remaining streets close to the station in the village are going to be targeted.

This is going to be a tough fight and I guarantee that almost every other area proposed for 5 storey apartments will be signing a petition against it. If we don't want this to happen in Normanhurst we have to have really strong arguments and alternatives to the strategy proposed I think we have strong reasons to stop this rezoning and could come up with alternatives if necessary, but we don't have much time to get an argument together. The council has a whole steering commitee working on this for a long time, we have only 2 months to present our objections

Finally, if the rezoning goes through, the council has said that all the properties affected will now have higher land values because they are able to be redeveloped for more housing so they will also be subjected to higher rates. Every one of those households will have to pay much higher rates (they can apply to not pay if they cannot afford it, but if they sell their house the value of the postponed rates is payable to the council as part of the property transacation). This is a very sneaky way of increasing rates, and also making it more likely that property owners in the rezoned areas will have to sell quickly because they cannot afford the increased rates on their properties. It also makes it far less attractive for normal buyers to want to buy those properties. I really think that this is an unfair policy and should be fought against in its own right

It is interesting to note that in yesterday's Advocate where a comparatively generous amount of space on p.5 was dedicated to the sob story of some woman in Mt Colah saying her new dream home was in the middle of the redevelopment area, there was also a comment on a media briefing where the general manager Robert Ball said that Council's town planners did not target areas where there were "two-storey mansions".

So that gives us a bit of a hint at the professional manner in which this whole strategy was executed. This is worthy of further discussion I think. It is very soul destroying when you think that these council characters, supposedly professional are easily seduced by cheap vulgar mc-mansions and see them as more worthy of being retained than something older of far greater architectural merit and often, as in our case, with a significant 2 storey addition at the back.

But hey, when these guys did their drive-by to assess the potential precincts they could not possibly see what was beyond the facade. In our case we went to great effort to reduce the height and visibility of the new wing so that it would be more harmonious and in keeping with both the house itself and also lessen the impact on surrounding properties.

Obviously 6 years of studying architecture did not teach us the right things and was a complete waste of time!

Back to the sobbing woman in Mount Colah - her house is not, as she claims, smack bang in the middle of the targeted redevelopment area. It is not even on the edge of the precinct but about 300 hundred metres south of the southern edge of it and on the opposite side of the Pacific Highway.

Then the article next to the dream home already has the sharks circling in the form of local real estate agents and developers, the so called "experts" on such matters telling us how this is a reality, get over it and you will make money.

I found all this rather rank, obscene actually.

The developer lives in Asquith. ASQUITH! Real big league stuff!

Elizabeth Farrelly of the SMH would love this one!

I know some people who have been through the rezoning issue in other areas. In one area in Homebush only a few houses have been sold to developers. Everyone else is sticking together and no-one else in the street will sell, so fortunately for them nothing can happen as the developers don't have enough room to build.

It has been over 5 years now and the street has remained the same, thanks to the residents who refuse to let the council and developers destroy their lives.

Does anyone else know about other people who have been through this before? Anyone with ideas for preventing rezoning or having it amended to only allow townhouses etc. should attend the community meeting at the Uniting church hall in Buckingham Ave at 3:30 this Sunday.

I just wanted to post this at the top of the page as it's hidden in the replies to comments (thanks Lizo):

There is a meeting to be held by local residents THIS SUNDAY at 3.30 pm at Normanhurst Uniting Church on Buckingham avenue. I think that anyone experienced in this area will provide an invaluable input and will be vital in the fight to get a better outcome than the current proposal

Hornsby Council’s proposal to put an 8-10 storey development between Pennant Hills Rd and the railway line plus the 5 storey units for Station St and surrounds in Thornleigh as well as their proposal for Normanhurst leaves my partner and I gob smacked, dumfounded, and very angry. Their own documentation highlights traffic issues and the lack of green space available for the required parks. Pennant Hills Road is already a nightmare and Sefton Rd, Milson Pde, Malsbury Rd, Clark Rd, College Crescent & Unwin Rd can resemble a car park in peak and school times and it just gets worse. Council’s approval of those really disgraceful, environmentally/people unfriendly monstrosities in Waitara, that have no extra green space with people looking into other peoples living spaces, is a promise of things to come if we are complacent. Could I borrow our mayor's rose coloured glasses so I too can "see Waitara in a new light". I don't know of anyone (except the mayor and probably the developers) who see this once reasonable suburb as anything other than an horrific eyesore. If we are forced to have more people (which we actually can't sustain) in this already gridlocked and overcrowded city then we must make sure that any future buildings are as green as possible and not ugly, cheaply built, shoddy highrise developments with their potential future problems (problems which WILL rear their ugly heads eventually). We must not make the mistakes of Waitara again. 5 storey buildings cheek by jowl with no privacy is not the way to go. Come on ratepayers we elect these people to represent us and we need to stand up and be counted or we will be bulldozed as surely as Waitara was.

I agree that this proposal has been a 'stealth' approach by government. I would also suggest that this proposal is incredibly wrong for Normanhurst. Trains, roads, schools, local hospitals cannot and will not support this kind of development. If there is an accident on Pennant Hills Road, Normanhurst becomes a car park. Trains are already at bursting point across Sydney. A Normanhurst mother said to me today that she can't get her children into schools in the area because they are too full (catchment). I have spoken with residents and shopkeepers alike, and noone has anything positive to say about this development.

I think that with the disaster that is Waitara (ugly, no additional infrastructure) that council would have learnt a lesson. With the numerous developments that are dotting both the Northern Line and North Shore train lines, I think it is vitally important that green pockets are maintained.

Please write to council, local papers, state council and keep up the pressure.

Please join the facebook group 'Save Normanhurst Village from development'

Just to get people thinking a bit more about potential property values:

Apparently developers estimate that the cost of property purchases constitutes a third of the total value of a project. The planned units are meant to be mainly 1 & 2 bedroom ones and it is also planned to have low cost units. 1 & 2 bed units currently sell in waitara for around $350,000, maybe $400,000 for a few better ones. If you take the average value of a future unit in Normanhurst to be $400,000 in today's costs then, the buckingham Ave precinct of 128 propsed units would be worth $51,200,000. So one third of this amount, ie $17 million is what they would pay the owners of the 27 properties. This amounts to an average of just over $600,000 per property! So obviously less than market value for many of the properties. A townhouse in Huddart Ave just sold for $549,000. A property with a modest home but good block was on the market in buckingham for $625,000 and sold quickly so I assume it must have gotten close to that price.

So much for talk about getting more because the land is more valuable when rezoned. i suspect they use valuer general's values and then maybe double them.these values are generally always less than market value anyway. And they will consider that the improvements that sit on your land don't exist ie your actual home. BEWARE

Thankyou to all of those who are bringing forward strong arguments as to why high-rise is not a good idea for this suburb. Hopefully our Mayor was listening yesterday as lots of fantastic ideas have been put forward.

Normanhurst is a beautiful suburb, a lovely place to be a child, raise a family, be part of the community and to grow old.

My points:

- A number of the houses appear to date back as far as 1917, making the vague details in the ‘Housing strategy' inaccurate.

- Sporting facilities are fairly limited in the area proposed and no additional recreational areas have been suggested. This is a problem with the proposed site. I doubt the Department of Education would welcome people using their facilities (Normanhurst Public School and Normanhurst Boys High School) on the weekend for recreational purposes. I imagine Loretto College would be even less impressed. This is likely to occur if large numbers of people move to the area. This could also encourage night time anti-social behaviour and increased vandalism to the area. It could also result in increased costs to DET who will have to employ security guards to patrol the schools.

- Schools in the area are at capacity. Secondary schools in the area may be inaccessible to many new people due to cost of private and catholic colleges. Normanhurst Boys and Hornsby Girls are selective. I find it hard to believe that people living in units could afford the fees of private schools. It could be the case that people with adolecent children are less likely to live in units? Is there any data from the Waitara experiment???

Other points/ questions: Independent and reliable surveys of the area should look into:

- How many pedestrians use the footbridge, Fraser, Normanhurst and Buckingham Roads of a morning and afternoon?

- Have council/ RTA conducted a proper study (and not in school holidays!) as to how many cars use Fraser Road and Normanhurst Roads at peak times? As a resident, you cannot exit your driveway on such days. Fraser Road already becomes like a one way road with people parking on both sides.

- How many children attend Normanhurst Public School, Loretto and Normanhurst boys?

- How many buses drive up and down Normanhurst Road and adjoining roads delivering rail commuters and school students to the area?

- How many commuters are parking in the affected roads on weekdays?

- How many people are using Normanhurst station at peak times?

- Have council considered that for a number of residents on the east side of Normanhurst road presents as a safer way to turn and head back towards Hornsby as Pennant Hills Road can be difficult to negotiate at various times of the day?

- Has anyone consulted with the Department of Health to establish weather Hornsby Hospital and its associated Community Health Centres cope with the proposed increased number of residents to the Hornsby Shire? Or will they have to lump it and continue to struggle and stretch their services beyond capacity?

- If another more suitable site was decided on, is their scope for an additional train station between Normanhurst and Thornleigh or will that invite further developement down the track?

On an emotional and personal interest level, I was also wondering whether any follow-up studies had been conducted into the families who have been forced from their homes in places like Waitara, St Ives and Turramurra? How many of these people have been affected by the emotional stress and anxiety caused by the weeks, even years of worry and the trauma caused to them by losing their homes? What toll does their suffering have on our Health system?

As a recent graduate of Loreto Normanhurst, and a graduate of Normanhurst Public School, I feel that the effect of such a development in Normanhurst on school children and youths has been grossly overlooked.

The train station serves as the prime means of transport for students of Loreto Normanhurst and Normanhurst Boys High School, not to mention the school buses which also stop in the area. Most parents who collect their children from Normahurst Public School use the on-street parking on Normanhurst Rd, Denman Pde.

The congestion caused by school students/ parents already poses a significant risk- enough to require school teachers from Loreto Normanhurst and Normanhurst Public to monitor the area during the typical "school zone hours". I don't speak for any of the three schools located in this area of Normanhurst, but I cannot believe that Hornsby Council would put these thousands of children at risk in order to suffice a housing quota.

The Council has also failed (and has for many years) to consider the fact that Normanhurst presents no opportunities for government-supported secondary education. Turramurra High School (over 10 Km from Normanhurst Station) is already struggling with a waiting list of local students. An increase of children requiring secondary education in Normanhurst is completely unsustainable.

As a final concern, I would like the Council to consider the possibility of increased anti-social behaviour due to the proposed solution. Normanhurst Scouts and Normahurst Eagles Soccer Club have struggled to accommodate a huge increase in members within the last five years, and are forced to turn down more people each year (particularly within the ages of 9-17). The report suggests that the local sporting grounds and public facilities could not cope with such an increase in housing, which could undoubtedly encourage anti-social behaviour amongst the youths of Normanhurst if this project were to commence. The placement of the dwellings would certainly lead to an increase in the destruction/ defacing of property which would affect Normanhurst's school students, families, local wildlife and retail centres.

This type of development for Normanhurst is completely wrong. It will destroy our village. This needs to vigourously challenged at every turn. Council will make the decision. Let them know you're not happy and will remember this at the next election.

We can defeat this development for Normanhurst but then we need to turn our attention to the successive state govts (both sides) who have their hands out developers and then sing the praises of 'urban consolidation'. They are kidding! They are putting the cart before the horse. Whatever happened to the mantra 'build it and they will come' when thinking about infrastructure? Normanhurst Stn was built prior to 1900 when the locals put 100 pounds toward its construction. Can anyone ever imagine that happening now?

Govts are refusing to build to the infrastructure needed and then crushing more people into the areas where the existing infrastructure is overloaded. Try to catch a train from Hornsby to the City - if you get on after Beecroft, I hope you like standing.

Remember - Say NO to this development in Normanhurst and then send a message to Macq St to SAVE OUR SUBURBS.

Keep updating this site and transform your 'PASSIONATE FEELINGS' into 'PASSIONATE ACTION'.

It will be a damn hard fight, but we HAVE to win it. The most important aspect is, WE have to come up with proposals and solutions, we have to find and name areas

which can accept this quota of housing demand. To say "NO"

alone to this strategy does not help....despite all of the

arguments are spot on.

The danger is that the state can easily overrule the council and take the decision making out of their hands.

What worries me most now is the news that Pennant Hills rd

seems to have been downgraded to an "urban road" and the

tunnel under P'hills rd with the issue of stacks and all

has resurfaced (pardon the pun).

Who has latest details please ?????

Keep up the fight! I worry the whole issue gets another

dimension with this !!!!!!

It is not only as ratepayers that people need to stand up but also as voters in State and Federal seats. NSW needs to spend serious money in Sydney on infrastructure such as rail and metro but the government always pulls out of committing itself to anything. This is why they have dumped the issue of providing extra housing onto local government. local government often compounds the problem by being b-grade and mediocre in their decision making. Hence we get Strategies like this one. Local government then tries to get out of being responsible for any of it by saying that its the State government's fault.

Another thing that everyone should be aware of is that there is the very real possibilty of the main northern railway line being quadrupled to allow for a constant stream of goods trains to go screeching and rumbling past probably 24 hours a day and also to allow more interurban trains to go through. This too is going to have a disastrous effect on quality of life in the area with no benefit to local residents like more trains and faster trains.

So less trees, more noise, more stress, more pollution. Even here there is the possibility to properly plan a whole new line which does not devastate a lovely green area of Sydney. But the chance of it occurring is less than the chance of winning first division lotto not once but twice.

Seriously, in many ways this is truly a pathetic country. There are poorer countries that invest a lot more in infrastructure.

Revitalising certain run down areas is not a bad idea in itself. The Pennant Hills RD section around Thornleigh must be one of the ugliest in Sydney. Saying no to everything is not the way either. If we had said no to an opera house as some people did a long time ago and this was acted upon, then the opera house would not be standing today and that would have been a very sad thing. But what is needed is proper, appropriate, considered and well designed development. This is where good architects and urban designers are worth a thousand times the fees they are paid when there is a good outcome. But Australia as a society generally fails to appreciate designers.

We do deserve better.

27th March 2009

TO BARRY O’FARRELL MP

SUBJECT RE-ZONING OF NORMANURST

Dear Mr O’Farrell,

I write to seek your assistance with the local residents’ campaign to prevent the re-zoning of the ‘Normanhurst precinct’ for high rise development. I am not familiar with the other ‘precincts’ mooted for re-zoning and confine my remarks to Normanhurst.

We all appreciate that Hornsby Shire Council are being directed by the State Government on this matter and that, if they do not act, this re-zoning (and others in the Shire) will be carried out by the State Government which will probably take even less notice of the residents’ plight or the suitability of areas selected.

After what are obviously months of planning the plan has been released giving residents only two months to formulate and submit objections. The first question is why is this so? Are we in fact looking at a fait accompli?

The Normanhurst precinct, the land between Normanhurst Road, through Buckingham Avenue to Huddart Avenue, currently contains solid brick and tile homes with one or two exceptions. A comment in the Council planning strategy states that these homes are in “reasonable” condition. This is rubbish, the homes are in good to excellent condition with well kept gardens. They are patently much loved family homes, some even newly built or renovated.

The strategy document also states that, when developed, 70% of the dwellings with have sunlight for at least three hours per day! Currently 100% of the dwellings have sunlight all day! It doesn’t mention that dwellings on the other sides of Normanhurst Road and Huddart Avenue will also lose sunlight for a considerable part of each day when shielded by five storey blocks.

In the Shire’s Housing Strategy document, Volume 2, Part 8 under ‘recreation and leisure’ the Council’s own Parks and Landscapes team comment, and I quote:-

“Parks and Landscapes Team comments that there is little, if any, capacity within remaining

land in public ownership to provide recreation facilities for an increasing population. The

open space requirements associated with providing 2,600 dwellings to the meet Council’s

obligations to 2016 are as follows:

6 local parks, 2 specialty parks and 2 sportsgrounds.

In order to secure sufficient land for the provision of future recreation facilities it is likely

that land parcels containing existing housing stock, close to the precincts, will have to be

considered. Traditionally, land is less expensive north of Hornsby than south. It therefore

may be a better solution to concentrate on Asquith and parts of Hornsby for increased

density.” (my underlining and bold)

It seems from this that even the Council is of the opinion that this area is unsuitable as we the residents are convinced it is.

The planning strategy states that it will be the choice of each owner in the precinct whether or not to sell for redevelopment, in other words it is voluntary. Voluntary on paper perhaps but in reality it is not. The second any redevelopment is undertaken the ‘village’ nature of this area will be lost and property values will fall. These are homes for families who liked the neighbourhood and bought here, these are the homes of retired folk who have lived there most of their lives. They are looking at what is essentially forcible re-location and they will have to fund the concomitant costs of moving.

One has to ask the question with all the high rise development that has taken place in Hornsby Shire (vide Waitara) and the many battleaxe developments that have been, and are still being, carried out, have we already not done our fair share towards the perceived future housing problem. One can go up just so much but, sooner or later the city has to expand laterally. Why is there still a large vacant block in Romsey Street Waitara, is it that developers find that the market is now saturated and do not want to undertake further building there?

Is this push for high rise anything to do with the appalling , and now inability, of the State Government to provide infrastructure? Knock down fine dwellings in Normanhurst Village near established infrastructure and disrupt the lives of those who live there and we don’t have to build any infrastructure!

Lastly Barry, if infrastructure is the hidden motive behind the selection of Normanhurst, one only has to look at the massive residential estates built to the north west towards at at Glenhaven in recent years. There are no trains to that area and roads in peak hour are jammed yet the expansion into that area was allowed.

Please use your influence where you can to put a stop to the totally unsuitable transformation of the pleasant residential of Normanhurst into another Waitara.

Yours sincerely

letter signed with address

cOME ON EVERYONE, GET YOUR LETTERS IN.

Well, unfortunately for me, I'm not HUGELY aware of the topic, being nineteen years old. However, as an adult, hopefully the beauracrats in this situation will take my opinion into consideration also, seeing as all I'm going to get is older, and Hornsby council should want to keep me in the local area.

It perplexes me why the zone that has been picked for building high rises upon, is the one that the council wishes to make high-density. There are many old, double brick houses, many of those which have been renovated, extended, and have generally had a lot of work done to them. This is not the case in other parts of Normanhurst, where there are houses which aren't as well built, i.e fibro or 50's/60's/70's houses, more importantly houses which haven't had their residents expended much labor into them. However it seems that the council, as always, disregards old federation and/or Californian bungalows as old and decrepit. It worries me that there are people within our councils who are that narrowminded and uneducated. It seems that they deem McMansions to be ones which are to be 'left be', when really they are the ones which A. aren't as well built, B. Aren't timeless

In the Metro strategy, Normanhurst is described as a "Neighborhood Village" which means the infrastructure can service 150-900 dwellings (Mt Colah and Mt Ku-ring-gai are other examples). The next category up is a "Small Village" (eg. Berowra, West Penno and Westleigh) which can support 800-2,700 dwellings. Under current planning controls, the three Neighborhood Centres noted above are already well catered for, while all larger centres - villages, town centres, etc - in Hornsby Shire are the ones with capacity for significantly more dwellings. Normanhurst would be effectively moved up a rung to small village if the proposed 309 dwellings go ahead. Is this what council is intending?

Normanhurst is listed as a 'Neighbourhood Centre' in the state government's North Subregional Strategy (Centres & corridors section/pg 4). In the state government's Metropolitan Strategy, the recommended housing type for a 'Neighbourhood Centre' is in fact only townhouses/villas (Housing section/pg 14) - Links to both documents are on the Hornsby council website, on the housing strategy page, right at the bottom of the page.

Town planners have not even followed the state governments recommendations and if councillors vote to go ahead with 5 storeys, they are deliberately going against state government recommendations. What do they have to say about that?

Fantastic letter by Winnie yesterday!! I hope everyone is sending their letters of objection personally/emailing to all the councillors etc, as well as writing their feelings/facts/ideas here.

Councillors need to hear our opinions personally, as they won't all sit and read through our comments here. It's more effective for them to get a tonne of actual mail. They were elected by us and have a responsibility to do the right thing by us. We have a lot of valid points and they need to listen. We will NOT forget what happens here.

We also need to make sure they realise that if they vote to go ahead with the 5 storey proposal,

WE WILL VOTE THEM OUT at the next election. No doubt about it!

Two articles in the Hornsby Advocate March 26th have a strong bearing on the Council’s re-zoning plans. “South Dural set for 3000 new homes” reveals that there are residents in South Dural very keen to re-zone land for new dwellings and having some obstacles put in their way and “On a road to nowhere” informs us that there is a planned high rise next to Hornsby Station alongside existing high rise apartments, possibly 60 -70 dwellings.

Take into account the vacant block awaiting redevelopment on Romsey Street, Waitara, which is bigger eyesore that the buildings already built, (estimated 120 dwellings) and we have more dwellings in the pipeline that the Council’s stated requirement for the next ten years. Surely these projects are better than destroying fine existing homes and displacing existing residents?

Isn’t this what people call a ‘no brainer’? The only things that are missing are the Queen of Hearts, the white rabbit and the smiling Cheshire cat!!!

I am in Hammond Avenue. Like a lot of the comments I see that once infiltrated, the rest of Normanhurst will be subject to this planning or lack of, hence I will enjoy fighting the rights of us all.

I sent this email off yesterday to the Offices of Phil Ruddock, Judy Hopwood, all the B Ward councillors, the State Planning minister, the Premier and Hornsby council planning, with only response from Mr Ruddocks office explaining they are sending to State Government:

Dear All,

I am writing this email to voice my concern and to oppose the strategy as endorsed by the Hornsby council in response to the NSW State Government metropolitan planning objectives and dwelling target with relation to the Normanhurst Precinct.

When I moved to Normanhurst in 2005, I arrived with my wife and almost 3 year old daughter to a village that was laden with a lot of houses approaching 100 years old as ours is (c 1908) , and loved the fact we had a leafy suburb without the unsightly multi-storey apartments in the heart of our suburb.

The housing strategy aims at introducing 5 storey residential, office and retail premises, and changing the village streetscape the residents of Normanhurst have enjoyed and what we have enjoyed during the limited time we have been residents.

I understand that a lot of the drivers for the re-urbanisation planning as opposed to suburbanization is based on cost and real estate possibly limiting our water supply catchment if we continue to urban sprawl, and that it is easier and far cheaper to remove housing and replace with much higher density housing on what has been explained as major rail and infrastructure corridors. Of my concern is that the decent size back yards that our families have will disappear and the children will not, as part of the proposal, get extra amenities in the form of ovals or parks or sports grounds or a back yard to promote exercise and well being. Under the proposed changes for Normanhurst Precinct in the section Recreation and Leisure, council themselves have seen the challenge of providing land for recreational use, and see that it will require the purchasing of land that is part of housing stock, whilst also admitting it may be a better solution to concentrate on Asquith and Hornsby for increased density.

On the subject of providing infrastructure or capitalizing on existing infrastructure, the transport corridors in our area cannot cope with current demand and this further exacerbated by trucking thoroughfare from the north to the south of the city. As far as rail is concerned, my stop to Normanhurst similar to that of Cheltenham is one that is considered by State Rail planners as secondary, hence I find myself sitting potentially at Epping station for an extra 20-30 minutes depending on the time of day in order to get a stop to Normanhurst. Shifting the focus back to roads, the road of highest concern is Pennant Hills road. Today it is congested during both business hours and also on the weekend. No matter how many people will use rail for commuting, they still need to get food and need to travel outside of work, and this needs to be addressed before we ever consider increasing housing density in any of the precincts. I cannot imagine what state we would be in if we had higher density housing in Normanhurst and its impact on traffic with Pennant Hills road.

Other concerning factors are of those also mentioned for both the Normanhurst Road and Buckingham Avenue proposals regarding Infrastructure issues for both Sewage and Drainage Catchments having limitations. These will undoubtedly have a flow on cost to the constituents meaning higher rates and possibly potential issues with existing services being impacted.

A lot of the planning for the Hornbsy Shire housing density I believe has come from the Metropolitan Strategy of the NSW State Governments City of Cities planning. The document has forecasted population and growth figures that were captured at a time the Australian economy was heated and yielding high returns driving these population and employment figures. Today the economy has been in decline for quite a few months. Immigration has almost halted and the outlook is bleak. So are the 1.1 Million people from 2004 to 2031 still required? I believe that in order to assess accurately the need, we must review the figures and ensure that our projections are accurate and follow a lot of the plans and strategies that are now facing our country and how it will respond to the recession and how it gears itself for the future.

Within the scope of the current stimulus packages being discussed at federal and state levels, there are plans to look at investing in infrastructure and this is what is needed now to meet demand. Why do the suburbs have water restrictions? Why on our hottest days do we worry about power being delivered to cater for air conditioning? We should be investing in infrastructure to cater for our population today let alone an extra 20% in 20 years.

If there is a need for urbanization in greater numbers, then increase the numbers where firstly there is scope for infrastructure changes and amenities to cater for the numbers, yet also where there has been development already. Waitara and Hornsby units are now well established; ugly, but well established; and they have allowed a lot of new buyers to enter the market, yet most are investment and rental properties, so has it met what is was intended for?

Of the Normanhurst precincts potential market, we have both first home buyers who are looking moreso at houses so they can start raising a family several years down the track, or we have the 85+ people who, if they were approached and asked where they would like to live, would more than likely be a single story area where they can have a bit of a yard and an area to congregate and meet like citizens having the same interests. Of the greater demographic though, are people who have primary school children and will be working for at least 20 to 30 years to either pay off their mortgage, raise their family or prepare for retirement making way for new families to do the same.

The most tragic part though is that what is being proposed for Normanhurst will mean that well established and picturesque existing houses of almost 100 years of age will be destroyed. A quaint main street will become a commercial and unattractive street lacking character or charm. Normanhurst will lose a Uniting Church that caters not only to the people who attend regular services, yet also caters for other groups that service the community (eg Dance Academy, School uses etc).

The existing primary schools cannot meet demand currently, so an additional 250+ dwellings worth of school children will mean that schooling and respective services will need to be developed, yet there does not seem to be mention of this regarding impact assessment.

I want to keep Normanhurst as it is. I share the view of 100s of residents, and we would like Hornsby Council to either commit to a greater than 80% occupancy or build elsewhere, yet we want to keep Normanhurst as it is so can you please remove Normanhurst precinct from the plan.

As mentioned in the Normanhurst Precinct pdf file, it would be more beneficial to look at the higher density housing in areas where adequate amenities can be provided, like Asquith or Hornsby.

I hope that there is scope for change, and that we can save Normanhurst from what most constituents see as something they do not want and what the council does not need. There are alternatives, and ones that make better sense.

As the audience at federal, state and council levels, I ask that you please accept this as a concerned citizen, and ask that common sense prevail and that you all keep Normanhurst the way it is and remove it from the proposed planning.

Regards,

RichardB43. Who are you refering to? Who is dropping off anonymous leaflets? I certainly am not. Where have these leaflets been dropped? not in Normanhurst. Can you please reproduce the words on the leaflets on this forum so we can all know what it is you are talking about?

Again for perhaps the third or fourth time I must say that the very short new train line does not offer considerably shorter distances to most places that people on the northern line travel to. Macquarie yes and Chatswood. Even with a few extra services the frequency falls short of the frequency on the North Shore line. Maybe in Asquith you are lucky and can get a train down to Hornsby that coincides with an interurban. I don't know. But it certainly sounds highly likely that you don't catch a train to work seeing as you mentioned elsewhere that you work in St Ives.

What on earth has the Brickpit got to do with anything? You can say exactly the same thing about the equestrian centre at Fagen Park. It was built with government money (our rates) and it benefits only a handful of people. The brickpit has an indoor facility for netball or some similar sport. It doesn't have ovals. And it is rather isolated. People often don't feel comfortable letting their kids go there alone

Removed by moderator. Comment is a duplicate of the following comment

The State Government’s record on ‘planning’, or lack of it, in recent times is abysmal.

To list a few foul ups.

1. We have hospitals being built or renovated with operating theatres built which so far removed from accepted specifications that they cannot be fully utilised.

2. We have rail carriages delivered that do not have enough power to go up some inclines on the network.

3. We have other rail carriages soon to be delivered with air conditioning (we are nearly in the 21st century!) which draw so much power that the rail power grids cannot handle them. The cost of the necessary upgrade of the grid has gone from million $125 to million $870!

4. We have a North West Rail link planned but reduced to half when they discovered they did not have the money.

5. We have a city metro planned which does little for city congestion and nothing for commuters in areas which have no trains.

6. We have water piping, some more than 100 years old, urgently needing upgrading with no plans for this essential work.

7. We have peak hour toll increases on the tunnel and bridge which were designed to ameliorate city centre traffic congestion. Savvy motorists merely use a different route clogging up the Victoria Road. These tolls also affect motorists not planning to enter the city centre but who are bypassing the city on the various distributors to other areas.

8. Premier Askin, over 50 years ago, stated we needed another dam to cater for the growing population of Sydney and its surrounds, he was very prescient – no plans yet, just a piddling little, very costly and environmentally unfriendly de-salination plant.

One could go on and on but, with their appalling record in plain view for all to see, how can anyone rely on their forward estimates of population growth and pie in the sky plans for more housing? If they were running a chook raffle you would probably go home with a meat tray, if that!

Furthermore consider The State Government’s draconian and totalitarian approach to Councils on the housing matter. ‘If you do not do it to our liking and timing, we will come in and do it for you and neither the councils or the residents will have no say in our plans’. Shades of Nazi Germany and present day totalitarian states, not a democracy which we are supposed to be!

Remember all this at the next State election.

Have a good read of the paragraph in the Council pamphlet under F.A.Q. which deals with valuation and rates.

Amongst the goobledegook it is plain that the Council considers that once a property is re-zoned it will attract higher rates since “the property will be able to be developed for more housing….”

Now what about an occupant who elects not to sell for development although his block is in the re-zoned area?

Assume for one minute that two existing blocks will comfortably accommodate a five storey high rise building containing a conservative ten units. That means each block will effectively, if developed, increase its occupancy rate fivefold. It is not therefore a flight of fancy to assume that an occupant who does not chose to sell for development will have his or her rates increased by a similar increment! Imagine your annual rate notice increased five fold!!!

What we have here is an ill conceived, one size fits all, facile blanket solution to revaluing for rating purposes.

The fact of the matter is that re-zoning creates a potential for a higher occupancy rate and value. It is not until a redevelopment is planned and approved and takes place that the value actually increases and it certainly does NOT if an occupant does not sell, if anything the value goes down.

All objections to Council must call for change to this current concept and that higher rateable values only be applied to properties that are actually developed and NOT merely upon re-zoning of the Normanhurst precinct being gazetted. Of course this applies equally to all precincts under the current ‘gun’.