Sign In
or Create a new account
Precincts in Pennant Hills
Council is trying to encourage more housing close to shops and train stations in Pennant Hills. 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:
Pennant Hills precincts (1.407 MB)
Comment 1 16 Mar 2010, 3:25 PM
"There are limited traffic management improvements possible due to road network". You don't say!
Do Council's 'experts' live in this area, or even in this world?
Pennant Hills Road is a parking area for large parts of every day and yet you want to add MORE traffic. Get real!
If, one day in the unforseeable future, something is done to fix the North-South traffic problem (don't hold your breath) THEN, MAYBE, this proposal could be considered.
Comment 1.1 17 Mar 2010, 1:47 PM
The current congestion on Pennant Hills Road and Trebor Road during peaks is without doubt at breaking point. The introduction of an additional 43 dwellings within this precinct will further congest the area. There is no way that access / egress at the Trebor Road frontage can be considered. This congestion is further compounded by the 3 primary schools within the immediate locality, and hence raises further concerns for child safety.
As part of a commute from Pennant Hills to the city via the M2 at Cheltenham (+ LCT), it takes a total of about 35-40 minutes, of which over half of this time is spent getting out of Pennant Hills and through Beecroft.
There is no apparent solution for traffic management within the designated area due to current road contraints.
Comment 1.1.1 25 Mar 2010, 1:22 PM
Clearly there is a vested interest in this matter. Please confirm.
Comment 1.1.1.1 25 Mar 2010, 2:51 PM
There seems to be…You're very unhappy about the traffic (traffic you contribute to, not just locally, but all the way into the city). It's unfortunate that you can't drive to work in 20 minutes, maybe if more people caught the train you would have a faster journey? If more students walked, used a bike or got the bus maybe the localised school traffic would disappear as well. Have you done anything proactive to help manage the issue; held discussions with the school; promoted the benefits of active living to your friends? Or is this further concern for school children’s safety (despite school zones for this exact reason) a front for the fact you just don’t want the development.
Comment 1.1.1.1.1 25 Mar 2010, 5:20 PM
Your guise of using environmental issues is not particularly clever,whilst your dismissive response regarding child safety in an area that accommodates three primary schools is less than clever, in fact rather inappropriate.
Again, I would request that you please disclose your vested interest.
Comment 1.1.1.1.1.1 26 Mar 2010, 11:47 AM
Environmental issues?? I didn't realise I was talking about flora, fauna, water, though air quality certainly comes into it. Specifically I spoke about traffic; traffic that you contribute to and at the same time complain about. Apart from complaining on this website do you do anything pro active to prevent or reduce said traffic?? One point I did stress was 'active living' (see the PCAL website), which if more people took part in, those students you care about included, the quality of all lives would be improved in this city.
My interest is as a Hornsby Shire Council resident of 22 years. I'm interested in more sustainable living, an improved interaction between the natural and built environment, and active and interesting places.
Comment 1.1.1.1.1.1.1 26 Mar 2010, 3:32 PM
An "AL" lifestyle would be nice, and perhaps your utopian world allows you to pursue such a lifestyle. However, lets step back into reality for a moment. The world for others requires work, and places of employment are geographically varied. Unfortunately, walking or riding a bike to work is really not a viable option for most (particularly infant children on route to school), and in many cases public transport is also not a possibility. Private vehicular traffic is a reality and a bi-product of living in a global city - with the cost of operating a private vehicle why would more…
Comment 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 26 Mar 2010, 4:58 PM
Utopian Worlds...AL lifestyle...if you think having a less sedentary lifestyle (not without car, but just less of it) is utopian, then everyone involved in health, education and the environment industries may as well not bother. Getting to and from school, that's what the school bus, friends, siblings, lolli-pop people and the like are for - a whole community. If you can't get you're child to school safely in an area like Pennant Hills there are serious issues beyond traffic. And don't throw the cost out there...we all saw the result of rising petrol costs, where people simply went without other more…
Comment 1.2 25 Mar 2010, 11:15 AM
The Council puts forward an approach to encourage housing close to public transport and services and 'they' need to get real?! Walking distance to services (shops, schools, parks, library, gym, medical...do we need to go on) and access to the city (employment and entertainment) are major reason's not to use a car. Pennant Hills Road is part of the national highway, it’s unfortunate that all vehicles (including freight that should be on trains) pass through, but until serious upgrades outside of Councils hands occur, little can alleviate the traffic issues. What is the point here is housing needs to be provided. Council works towards an aim of a supplying sustainable mix in places of a built up nature and still people complain, instead of getting in and helping to make the outcome as best as it can be.
Comment 1.2.1 25 Mar 2010, 1:05 PM
Removed by moderator - the comment sought to identify other users
Comment 2 17 Mar 2010, 2:41 PM
The current congestion on Pennant Hills Road and Trebor Road during peaks is without doubt at breaking point. The introduction of an additional 43 dwellings within this precinct will further congest the area. There is no way that access / egress at the Trebor Road frontage can be considered. This congestion is further compounded by the 3 primary schools within the immediate locality, and hence raises further concerns for child safety.
As part of a commute from Pennant Hills to the city via the M2 at Cheltenham (+ LCT), it takes a total of about 35-40 minutes, of which over half of this time is spent getting out of Pennant Hills and through Beecroft.
There is no apparent solution for traffic management within the designated area due to current road contraints.
Comment 2.1 27 Mar 2010, 10:49 AM
As a local Pennant Hills resident, I completely agree with the current traffic bottleneck situation on the local roads.
On a hypothetical scenario, slightly off topic, if it was up to you, where would you advise the 43 dwellings be relocated to?
Comment 2.1.1 29 Mar 2010, 2:22 PM
Pennant Hills has exceeded its quota for high density residential accommodation - as confirmed in the Planning Strategy documentation. Further consideration of Beecroft, Cheltenham and Normanhurst are required. These areas currently have nil or very minimal high density accommodation.
Overall, Pennant Hills requires preparation of an appropriate Masterplan in order to consider further high density residential development. This would include the CBD / retail precinct.
Comment 2.1.1.1 31 Mar 2010, 12:08 PM
You raised some good points. Thanks for enlightening me with some perspective.
My only concern is what prevents residents of surrounding suburbs you named raise their 'problems' and objections to higher density in their area, and thus passing the planning strategy back in circles.
Comment 2.1.1.2 31 Mar 2010, 2:48 PM
Now you're talking, some positive steps. Get the council, instead of just rezoning a small part to get in there and upzone the whole area around the train station, from the Shell on Pennant Hills Road to the Library)...put the ugly car parks underground (make them larger - level for shoppers, level for commutters), redevelop the shops/malls, include a mix of housing above the retail to levels stepping down from 6 or 7 and get some new, interactive public space. Transit-oriented development!!
Comment 2.1.1.2.1 31 Mar 2010, 3:14 PM
Exactly Rooney! And everyone wins! And it keeps the higher density residential out of surrounding areas. And Pennant Hills becomes a much more attractive place. It has a lot of potential. A win-win situation it can be.
Comment 2.1.1.2.2 1 Apr 2010, 5:17 PM
Now you want more car spaces? Be consistent in your advocacy. Your platform for 'active living' doesnt really support this, does it?
Comment 2.1.1.2.2.1 1 Apr 2010, 5:25 PM
What on earth are you talking about?
Comment 2.1.1.2.2.2 6 Apr 2010, 12:07 PM
Yes, more car spaces, so people don't have to park a kilometre from the station as they currently do and so the shopping centre retains the current number.
Comment 2.1.1.3 31 Mar 2010, 3:12 PM
I would have imagined that the residents of Pennant Hills would appreciate improvements to what is a very run down disjointed centre. Harris Farm Markest is virtually the only thing that saves Pennant Hills shops!
Comment 2.1.1.3.1 1 Apr 2010, 5:26 PM
So tell us what is good about Pennant Hills shops if you disagree?
Comment 2.1.1.4 31 Mar 2010, 3:21 PM
Actually if you look at the Pennant Hills section of the Strategy you will find that Pennant Hills is (-) minus 1109 dwellings. This means that council considers that there should be more dwellings in Pennant Hills, not that it has a surplus like you seem to think. Some of the other areas you mention are surplus in their dwelling numbers.
You can check with council if you don't believe me. It is not just my opinion.
And I agree that a masterplan of the whole centre needs to be done but nothing much seems to happen in this regard and all you end up getting in Pennant Hills is a bit of extra paving and a couple of trees.
Comment 2.2 31 Mar 2010, 12:19 PM
If you are commuting to the city from Pennant Hills why are you not catching the train? Pennant Hills being a larger centre has a more frequent service than other smaller surrounding stations. Also when you get to the city what do you do with your car?
Comment 3 1 Apr 2010, 11:00 AM
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users
Comment 4 1 Apr 2010, 1:17 PM
Obviously, if those who are paid to administer and improve our transport and other infrastructure were doing their jobs we wouldn't be in the mess we are in. However, given the current state of affairs, there are many people who cannot do all the things they NEED to do by walking, cycling or catching public transport (if any) as some others in this forum seem to be able to do.
So... for the moment, here is my solution to the problem at hand. The residents (and visitors) of this proposed development won't NEED to own cars; after all, they can walk to the train, bus, shops, schools, doctors, dentists. And where the garages would have been there can be some very nice shops and other facilities. Problem solved.
Comment 4.1 6 Apr 2010, 12:03 PM
The advice was less of the car, not being rid of it.
Comment 5 1 Apr 2010, 5:09 PM
Wow, the developers advocates / lobbyists are really working overtime on this forum. The holding costs on your sites must really be causing some pain.
Comment 5.1 1 Apr 2010, 5:52 PM
You missed the irony DNH. I think the whole rezoning proposal is stupid and I'm totally against it at this stage - AND there is absolutely NO chance any developer (or Council for that matter) would agree to the development I outlined.
Comment 6 1 Apr 2010, 5:35 PM
Westgate & Razor
Comment 6.1 6 Apr 2010, 12:36 PM
Speaking of mysteries, DNH, you still haven't mentioned why you drive to work in the City and complain about the traffic at the same time?? Take it you had a smoother drive without those school zones this morning...???
Comment 7 1 Apr 2010, 5:47 PM
Some commentators appears to be surprised that public transport to and from Pennant Hills is not a viable option for all city commuters. While I make use of the transport facilities at Pennant Hills as much as possible, as a young female commuter working long hours in the city, catching a train (contrary to crisis'suggestion)is not practical because, for me, its not safe. I would be lucky to finish work at 8pm each day, but lets say I do, I won't be able to get to the station in time to catch the 8.07 so will catch the 8.24. This will get me home at 9.08pm, followed by a walk home in the dark. I have done this and even later trips on more than one occasion. In the past (and yes, travelling in a night safe carriage)I have been inappropriately touched by a male commuter purporting to be asleep, followed off the train by another male commuter and been forced to get off the train early at Epping due to a similar incident. I now drive to work. One size does not fit all - there will always be road traffic because of people's individual circumstances.
Comment 7.1 1 Apr 2010, 10:38 PM
It is very unfortunate that you have had so many unpleasant incidents happen to you on the trains and it is understandable that you don't feel safe catching a train anymore. But luckily this doesn't normally happen to most people.
I think that passenger safety both on the train and on stations is something that needs more attention.
Also the majority of commuters are travelling earlier and so would not be travelling alone.
Comment 7.1.1 4 Apr 2010, 1:13 PM
Crisis,
Zippo's problem is real but unfortunately she will be on the horns of a dilemma. Petrol will probably rise to $5 a litre which will make driving to work for her to be unaffordable. However there will probably be more people on the train anyway at those prices.
Some here have complained of the traffic on Pennant Hills Rd. With the price of diesel expected to be three times its present price and petrol reducing car travel that will no
longer be a problem.
The government has only allocated 23% of funding to rail and two thirds of that is to be spent in Melbourne.
All in all I don't expect much of the HSC plan to be implemented due to a shortage of crdit as I said on the Normanhurst list.
Comment 7.1.2 4 Apr 2010, 2:04 PM
Actually Crisis, sadly it is a situation faced by many young women who catch the trains. You are right. It is a situation that needs urgent attention.
Once, I even had a city rail guard make inappropriate gestures and comments to me on a trip home from university late at night. I complained to city rail and called up a radio station to dob him in!
Comment 7.1.2.1 6 Apr 2010, 6:05 PM
There is not much hope when the guard himself is engaging in such conduct. Thanks for confirming that I am not alone on this one.
Comment 7.2 6 Apr 2010, 12:30 PM
This is awful Zippo and totally unacceptable...and certainly not an isolated incident. The number one priority for all public transport must be safety. In any case, the more people on a train and around the station the better – the safer. Casual surveillance is a major deterrent of crime. An issue for Pennant Hills is that it is dead after 6-7pm. This is compounded by poor urban design (no urban design), poor lighting and the fact no one lives directly near the station; very few out dining, exercising or doing anything. If the place was to be renewed with appropriate design and amenity it would be much safer. Added to an increase in housing and the hours of business and service operation (due to the higher concentration of people) comes an increase in concentrated activity that would make the place safer. You had to get off in Epping to feel safe, a place with a much larger window of activity.
Comment 7.2.1 6 Apr 2010, 6:03 PM
I appreciate your sympathy and I agree that safety should be the priority for public transport. However, I disagree that a higher concentration of people in a suburb is the solution. I got off at Epping because safety dictated that I depart the train at that point in time, and not that I felt safe at Epping (the station did not even feature in the decision). In fact, the station I feel most unsafe at after 7pm is the station in the precinct that probably has the highest concentration of people - Hornsby. In any event, the purpose of my post was not to engender an ongoing debate about the safety of public transport - it was merely to provide one example of why a Pennant Hills commuter might drive to work despite living within walking distance of public transport. I think it naive to assume that each resident of the proposed development will only ever travel by public transport.
Comment 7.2.1.1 8 Apr 2010, 3:31 PM
Agreed. As previously said, very few if any could use public/without car transport alone.
Comment 8 5 Apr 2010, 9:28 PM
This is long overdue! Pennant Hills needs this and more.
Comment 8.1 6 Apr 2010, 12:43 PM
All of your sites? Problem is you local developers are out of your league with the proposals - they would be undertaken by groups with much more ability than the locals.
Comment 8.1.1 6 Apr 2010, 8:44 PM
What are you talking about? I am saying Pennant Hills needs a revamp, not leave it untouched like the civic trust wants!
Comment 9 7 Apr 2010, 1:52 AM
Planners really shouldn't stop at 20 storeys to house the masses that are arriving to satisfy an excited Mr Rudd & his "Big Australia" desire.
Have we observed what is happenning in the Sydney CBD and fringe areas? Young student populations, on study visas need to keep close to the many "International" schools & colleges that have sprung up providing questionable courses. These same students ARE being housesd in high-rise apartments such as World Square & Paddy's Markets 3 or 4 people per bedroom.
This is all with the approval of building managers. 2 bedroom apartments with 8 students paying $100 - more…
Comment 9.1 8 Apr 2010, 4:13 PM
An interesting read (laugh). Not sure about your 'arriving' descriptions or the effects from the 'invasion' of Asian students. For a more accurate description of population see the link and the fact 69% of Sydney's growth is natural (maybe you could blame those old people for living longer?).
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-population-to-top-6m-in-2036-report-20100406-ro4i.html
Out of curiosity, your thoughts on the countries that Mr Rudd admires?? Love to hear a comparison of property rights between Australia and China (give you a picture to start you off).
Comment 9.1.1 25 Apr 2010, 12:16 PM
No no Rooney, it's much easier to blame immigrants.
Comment 10 8 Apr 2010, 12:48 PM
I actually think there should be more development in Pennant Hills. The shops are all worn and deserted and that whole area near the station really should be torn down and rebuilt.
I think Pennant Hills is a much better suited area for building than Mount Colah and Asquith with their infrequent trains and greater distance to the city.
Comment 11 20 Apr 2010, 2:30 PM
If there is to be development of the Pennant Hills area then why not use the existing areas that are badly in need of improvement, use the area bounded by Hillcrest, Yarrara and Ramsay Street (this is currently shops and fruit markets etc). Existing street access from either Ramsay or Hillcrest roads could be used as egress and ingress points and on the top three or four levls could be apartments for the number of dwellings being proposed and have the shops and car parks underneath. These areas are in bad need of refurbishment and there would be no disruption to traffic or parking as it is already used for public purposes.