Our Warriewood District Park

The Future of your promised Warriewood Park is at risk!!

Following the public meeting below (on site) arranged by Council, the WRA committee brought to Council’s attention that the tape marking out the park at the meeting had over estimated the true size of the park by between 5 and 14 metres in width (measured at the side boundary of 9 Fern Creek Road – the land Council have already purchased for the park). The reason the variance is between 5 and 14m, is because of a strange discontinuity between the Deposited Plan for Australand’s land and the adjacent Deposited Plan for 9 Fern Creek Road. The park was 5m over estimated if you measure it off Australand’s DP, and about 14m if you measure it off the DP for Council’s land.

The boundary is supposed to be the centre line of the creek, and obviously the creek doesn’t suddenly move 9 – 10m as you cross this boundary, so we are still trying to understand why these DPs are so different, and what this means in relation to the proposed park.

In the meantime however, we have had further discussions with adjacent land owners and WRA members, and have proposed an alternative proposal to Council. This alternative can be viewed here, and we would welcome your views on this alternative. We believe that any land swap needs to represent an opportunity for all stakeholders to get a better outcome. The population now projected for the Warriewood Valley is 58% greater than originally projected when the 2Ha park was originally proposed. Projected dwellings have increased from approximately 1528 (ref Section 94 Plan 2001)  to 2510 (in the latest draft Section 94 plan), so the bottom line is we need more useable park for our kids to play. While many see benefits in a linear park, others argue it is not as useable. We have therefore simply proposed a wider linear park that is more useable and that is proportionally larger to reflect the increase in population now projected for the Warriewood Valley.

Click here to view an alternative proposed by the WRA 

Please give us your feedback, as our role is to represent your views.

 

Public Meeting to brief residents on the proposed park

Residents in Warriewood have recently received notification from Pittwater Council that it is proposed to significantly change the shape of the second half of our large District Park. The first half of the Park in Sea green on the Park  off Callistemon Way has been completed and the new playground is much loved and much used. The instant success of the new playground highlights the current unmet needs of the young families in the valley, but the wider community too. The second (south) half of the park, across the creek (off Fern Creek Road) was always intended to mirror the current Park — rocket playground and its surrounds.

This new proposal from Council is to trade about half (the really useful part) of the 1Ha that was purchased in 2008 from our section 94 contributions, for adjacent creek line corridor land. The Warriewood Residents Association is concerned that the proposal to change the shape of the park from that originally proposed, will seriously compromise the usefulness of the park as a place to play informal games such a cricket, footy and to fly a kite etc. By it’s very shape (if it is linear) it will have to be a series of small play and picnic areas.

We are not suggesting the shape of the park must remain as the specific rectangle purchased, but we do believe the land we paid $4 million for should be retained, and not swapped for far less valuable and less usable land.

If you have any concerns about these proposed changes, please act now and attend the meeting.

You will have the opportunity to hear why Council are proposing to change the park, and have the opportunity to ask questions. Council staff and your elected Councillors will be there to explain and listen.

Thursday 16 October 2014, 6.00 To 7.30 PM on site at 9 Fern Creek Road, Warriewood (current horse paddock, end of Fern Creek Rd off Orchard St).

Some of the questions the WRA pose are below. Please leave your own and give us any other comments at the bottom of the page, as we can only succeed with your support.

  1. Why has the shape of the park been changed to a linear park? The proposed linear shape surely limits the possible use of the park.
    .
  2. The park was originally intended to be a “District Park”, which by Council’s definition included informal sporting activity. It has now been changed to a “Large Local Park” which is still intended to offer activities including “informal sport” according to Council’s ‘Draft Pittwater Public Space and Recreation Strategy’. Why is this new park being described as intended to provide “passive open space”
    .
  3. According to rpdata.com, approximately 24% of the Warriewood population are under 15 years old, a higher percentage than all surrounding areas and the rest of Pittwater. Should we be giving up usable space for our kids to play healthy informal sport? As most will be aware, other sports grounds are all booked for formal sport on the weekends. Would the originally proposed shape not be more suitable than this proposed linear park?
    .
  4. Whether there was any park proposed or not, there is already a requirement for the first 25 m from the creek line to be dedicated to Council as creekline corridor, and up to 50m from the creek cannot be built on. In the proposal before you, where has the 1Ha that Council paid $4 million from S94 contributions in 2008 …. for use as a park ….. gone?  There has been a significant increase in approved densities since the requirement for the 2Ha District Park was originally identified. Surely that suggests we need more space, rather than letting go what has already been purchased, or trading it for land that cannot be built on anyway. 
    .
  5. The 1 Ha half of the park in Sector 8 (Callistamon Way) excludes the creek line corridor, so why is the half in sector 9 (Fern Creek Road) drawn including the creek line corridor? The creek line corridor is land that Council require to be dedicated as a riparian vegetated corridor, as we see in all other parts of the Warriewood Valley. Council value this land at $60 per sq metre in their current Draft S94 Plan, somewhat less than the $400 per sq metre that Council paid for the 1Ha purchased back in 2008 for the park.
    .
  6. The current proposal seems little different to that proposed in a report to Council in May earlier this year. We are told by Council that the report in May was not a proposal by Council, but a rather a proposed land swap submitted by Australand, who own the adjacent land. We can understand why Australand might want to swap the land, but why has the community not been asked what they want in the way of the new park? There seems little difference between this latest proposal and that submitted by Australand.
    .
  7. Unfortunately, the proposed concept plan does not include dimensions that we were promised in our last meeting with Council, but by our estimates (scaled off the drawing), the half of the park proposed in Sector 9, apart from having no “bulge” to mirror the half in sector 8, and including all creek line corridor, is approximately 18% smaller than the half in Sector 8.
    .

    Below is a diagram that is Attachment 2 – part of Council’s report to the Council meeting 19 May 2014                                             (The full report can be found by clicking here):
    .

    19May14 Att 2


    And below is the current proposal circulated to residents this week:

    Proposal Oct14 with WRA comments

    There are light dashed white lines on the latest concept plan which show the 25m and 50m setback lines from creek centerline, (we have gone over them in red as they are hard to see otherwise).  We can see from both diagrams that the 25m creek line corridor is not included in the half of the park in sector 8, and where is the “bulge” in sector 9 to mirror the bulge in sector 8, and why is the 25m creek line corridor included in the area marked out in sector 9?

    Then just to make the comparison between Australand’s proposal and this current proposal clear, we have included below an overlay of both the diagrams above:

    Overlay with Australand proposal darker

    Please give us your comments below

Advertisements

Discussion

10 thoughts on “Our Warriewood District Park

  1. I really can’t envisage how the wildlife corridor will be reduced by retaining the park in the format originally proposed which provides more usable space for informal activities. I would have thought that the additional development being proposed at 32 dwellings per hectare would have had a more detrimental effect. The park as originally planned should be retained to cater for the current and future population. The sports field at Narrabeen High is not available to everyone and the fabulous Rocket Park in Callistemon is suitable mainly for the under 10s. It would be shortsighted to lose this area to increased housing.

    Posted by Jennifer | October 12, 2014, 11:22 pm
  2. We have paid for this park and no one has the right to on-sell it. The heavy use of the park at Calistemon Way, shows how badly the people of Warriewood need the promised and paid for park to be completed. With all the young families living in the area there is a pent up need for open space. That open space has been paid for by those same families and it is theirs to keep, not for council to sell and swap . We don’t want our children having to play at the creek line corridor among all the vegetation. . We want the park as promised so that we can all use it. One it is complete there will be parking, picnic table and chairs and loads of space to play. Come on council, fair is fair.

    Posted by Julia | October 12, 2014, 2:21 am
  3. Council does not adequately maintain the current creek line corridor open space areas. The bike paths are overgrown and becoming a weekend obstacle course for bikers, walkers and the elderly. The Sector 1 race track behind Prosperity Pde is an overgrown mess. Council should allow the currently acquired hectare of land to be incorporated as an open grassed water detention area/useable park. At least then it may be maintained easily with a mower and kids can run around on it without having to run through and over tick infested bush gardens. As mentioned in posts above, there will still be a buffer and creek line corridor for the movement of wildlife.

    Posted by Julie | October 11, 2014, 10:24 pm
  4. Previous negotiations with another developer in Boondah Road resulted in Council and residents losing out and worked out to the developer’s advantage. Isn’t this just more of the same? The Fern Creek Road park purchased for $4 million should be retained. It is more usable than the creek line corridor land proposed by the current developer for the “swap”. Otherwise why would the developer want it? Once an asset is sold it is lost to generations forever and for what – more housing in an area that has inadequate infrastructure? I am not aware of any other land area in Warriewood where this type of park can be replicated. SAVE THE PARK IN THE ORIGINAL FORMAT! OUR CURRENT RESIDENTS AND PITTWATER DESERVE IT.

    Neil

    Posted by Neil | October 11, 2014, 8:54 pm
  5. Regarding the Warriewood park the council is wishing to change, I am disgusted that we pay $4million for this, as a useable, area for recreation ,and some Brainbox decides to change the plan. Considering how inundated we are becoming, in Warriewood ,with more and more residences/units/townhouse/retirement accommodations, this is definitely needed in it’s original planned format. Also, I suggest we need more of this type of park area, not less! We have been run over with massive development here ,so am voicing my absolute horror at this Council’s stealth and obvious lack of foresight in this instance.

    Posted by Pauline Spence (comment copied from “Campaigns” Page by WRA)

    Posted by warriewoodra | October 9, 2014, 10:56 pm
  6. Give the residents the 25m buffer zone as well as the clear flat land. Given many of Warriewood residents have little more than a court yard as available outdoor space to their homes, we require as much park land as can be made available to us, to my mind children and adults alike, this is an essential requirement.
    Also there is only so much infrastructure to support the existing residents, my family and I find it difficult at times to leave the area due to traffic congestion, what plans does council have to improve the roads?

    Posted by Dorothy | October 9, 2014, 2:11 am
  7. Hette, I certainly agree we need more parking, but I think you might have missed the key issue on the proposal to change the shape of the park. Council require the first 25m from the creek to be a vegetated riparian zone with or without a park, and an additional 25m buffer zone cannot be built on, with or without a park (Total of 50m each side, as can be seen throughout the rest of the valley). The diagrams that propose the park in it’s linear form offer little increase in wildlife corridor as the proposed park is really no wider than that. Many however think it seriously compromises the parks usability for children wanting to play informal sports. When that land was purchased it was justified on the basis that it was what we needed for flat open space to form the other half of the District Park. Not necessarily that particular rectangle, but certainly not a 50 m creekline corridor that we will have anyway, with or without the land we paid $4m for. Council rejected Australand’s original proposal for a linear park back in 2007, and purchased the current land in 2008, because that is what was called for at the time. Not sure what has changed, apart from the fact that we now have a higher percentage of Children under 15 than the rest of Pitttwater. In this regard the future residents of the surrounding area are not here to have their say, but I believe the efforts of the Warriewood Residents Association have balanced this situation just like the original Warriewood development committee decided on the District Park as being necessary for the anticipated population growth. Please come along to the meeting, that the WRA have battled to have, so that all views are presented in open forum.

    Posted by Chris Hornsby | October 9, 2014, 1:03 am
  8. The Concept Plan, to swap the Council rectangular block for land parallel to Fern Creek, makes excellent sense. It widens the natural wildlife corridor connecting the escarpment with the wetlands, it is a natural extension to the park on the opposite side of the Creek and provides badly needed extra parking spots to alleviate the congestion in Callistemon Way. We would like to think that the odd shaped kink on the eastern side can be added to the park, given that the proposed swap will provide a substantial benefit to the developers. I cannot think why anyone would oppose the swap, assuming that the land surface area is the same or greater than the rectangular block and that the bridge will be built. This is one of those occations where we should support Council’s efforts.

    Posted by Hette Mollema | October 8, 2014, 1:09 am
    • Hette, There is already a requirement for a 50m wildlife corridor either side of the creek without a park. 25m dedicated to Council as riparian/vegetated, and a further 25m in private ownership that cannot be built on. This has always been a requirement as can be seen through the rest of the Valley that is part of the release area. Council has always planned to link the wetland with the escarpment and it is written into the DCP controls, so I cannot see any additional benefit?
      As you say extra car parking is badly needed but that could be available on at least two sides of 9 Fern Creek Rd, on the south and the west.
      It is the usefulness of the Park for the new families which is the basic issue. The as yet to be developed land has recently been allocated a much greater density than the land already developed. The maximum has risen from 15/25 per hectare to 32 per ha. We will need more, rather than less space for our kids to play in.

      Posted by Lynne Czinner | October 9, 2014, 11:18 pm
  9. Council’s concept plan does not give enough information to really see what they are proposing. Why wouldn’t they include dimensions and why isn’t the 25m creek line corridor properly marked out? Since the creek line corridor is land that the developers have to dedicate to council as public land then there is no reason to include it in a land swap.
    More of the cleared flat land should be kept so that kids can have a good space for impromptu footy/cricket games and to run around.

    Posted by Susan | October 7, 2014, 10:36 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Recent Comments

John Peterson on Blog
Chris Hornsby on Blog
Julia Guinan on Have Your Say – Proposed…
Chris Hornsby on Have Your Say – Proposed…
Jennifer on Have Your Say – Proposed…
aussieglide on Have Your Say – Proposed…
Makin Glynis on Blog
Chris Hornsby on Blog
Michael on Have Your Say – Proposed…
Michael on Why we love Warriewood
Chris Hornsby on Have Your Say – Proposed…
Jennifer on Blog
Makin Glynis on Blog
Felicity on Blog
Warwick Nield on Blog

RSS RFS Current Incidents or FIRES in NSW – Click to see map

RSS RFS Major Fire Updates

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: