Warriewood Residents Assoc.
Warriewood Residents Association Incorporated, INC9896003
Each of the campaign pages and some other pages encourage you to comment and give us your view. That way we keep your comments organised by topic. We appreciate however that there will be a number of other topics you may like to comment on, and this is a good place to start. If we see a number of related comments that suggest we need to add a campaign page, then that’s what we will do.
In the meantime, please give us your thoughts and leave your comments below on anything related to Warriewood.
Come back later to see what others have to say.
Discussion
26 thoughts on “Blog”
Leave a reply to Bev Cancel reply
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 |
RFS Major Fire Updates
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Warriewood Residents Assoc. 
.
Over 6,926 people request a ban on any building development at 52 Cabbage Tree Road Bayview
In objecting to the Waterbook Bayview Golf Club Seniors Living proposal of 95 units to be built in the centre of the Pittwater largest High Priority Wildlife Corridor –zoned OPEN SPACE , the proposal would have a significant impact on the amenity of adjoining properties. ( Refer DA 2017/1274 Lashta Haidari NBC )
The 7 buildings of 3-4 storey buildings are not the same as neighbouring “low rise” buildings & therefore not “compatible.”
It Is interesting that the Senior Landscape Architect with Northern Beaches Council ,has come out and noted that the dominant built form is NOT CAPABLE OF INTEGRATING with the landscape and is contrary to the requirements of SEPP 2004 and Pittwater DCP21.
The development does not recognize the desirable elements of the existing character of the area and fails to meet the requirement set under clause 33 of SEPP 2004 being “ Neighbourhood amenity and streetscape”.
Quote from the NSW Planning “How do we deliver development that both meets the growing needs of NSW that is mindful of the unique qualities of our communities? Character is a critical element of local areas and neighbourhoods and needs to be carefully considered in the planning process”
The Premier of NSW recognises the public interest in local character and open spaces and this sentiment aligns with the public interest
Yet the unique character and open space of our community has been given the ‘green light’ to be destroyed by the NSW Dept. of Planning by issuing a SCC for SEPP seniors living when this is the least compatible site you could ever possibly find for seniors living.
“ Communities want to keep their local character, they still want their open spaces.”channel 9 television, 23 Jan 2018 – Gladys Berejiklian -Premier NSW
However, what is most alarming is the potential long-term environmental damage that will result from this huge development. The destruction of over 159+ very mature habitat trees, in a designated high priority wildlife corridor which is home to 10 vulnerable species, will further contribute to the damaging effects of habitat destruction in Pittwater and increase the demise and extinction of vulnerable species such as the resident colony of microbats .
The repeated destruction of more and more critical wildlife habitat in recent years is a clear indication that the Northern Beaches Council, Sydney North Planning Panel & NSW / Federal Governments must pursue responsible policies and investments that protect our fragile ecosystems from inappropriate developments. This proposal is not in the” Public Interest “& certainly not a Strategic one.
Stopping the proposed development in this important wildlife corridor is also consistent with the NSW government’s signing of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment which is legislated as the Environmental Sustainable Development laws, with their 4 guiding principles. The NSW Government is bound by this legal agreement to protect the environment, and to adhere to the” precautionary “principle.
It all hinges on the words of the previous Planning Minister ,The Hon Rob Stokes MP on his assessment of this huge development proposal —“ that this site is not the appropriate place for multistorey residential apartment buildings . I have always supported density going in appropriate locations and that is designated centres , not in peripheral locations or (near) low – density communities .There are environmental concerns and constraints and expect the Northern Beaches Council to investigate those issues thoroughly .”————
This development is just like the developments being allowed by NSW Planning in Warriewood Valley – Enough is enough !
Posted by John Peterson | March 22, 2018, 2:17 amEveryone knows that the State Government has sold out on Pittwater. What this means for Warriewood Valley is unknown but if I were a betting man the sooner the area is build the safer we are. Pittwater Council shot themselves in the foot when the caved into the government and now the majority of Councillors will be from the disgruntled Warringah (unless there is fixing of this also). So we have to remain vigilant to new schemes that try to overturn the Strategic Review on the pretext that the review was for Pittwater and as it no longer exists (July 2016) go to their mates at the Department of Planning for a Pre-Gateway.
Posted by Chris Hornsby | January 21, 2016, 3:46 amThe future of the Sector 9 park is in the balance with the issue coming before Council on Monday 18 May 2015. The issue has been made more complex than it rely is to hide the fact that Warriewood residents paid for the park from the Section 94 contributions and while it is technically Council property it is also our open space. We simply ask the Councillors to appreciated that the open space once sold will never be returned to public recreation.
Posted by Chris Hornsby | May 13, 2015, 11:47 pmMany thanks Glynis and I hope that the Council will soon follow through. This would result in both a great win for the community and good taste. I must admit when this ghastly colour first appeared in a small section on the front I thought it was undercoat but then it seemed to creep over time to the eyesore it is today. Yes, it will be interesting to see how it is remedied. Thanks again for your efforts, Jennifer
Posted by Jennifer | April 28, 2015, 10:22 pmWho loves the Pink colour the Child Care Centre attached/part of the Meriton Development at 93 Macpherson St ????
We don’t, it is the straw that broke the camels back with this over development.
We made a formal complaint to Pittwater Council via there website as well as the councillors. In this instance not only did I have a response from some (not all) councillors we had a response from council proper, YEHHHHHHH.
We also emailed Mr Stokes and Mr Baird. I have recently had communication from Mr Stokes office in relation to this. I have attached the council’s response (below) and given that this letter was the beginning of April, I have gain emailed wondering what response they have had from the developer. Lets hope we don’t end up with Bright Blue or worse.
Re: 93 Macpherson Street, Warriewood
Thank you for your email of 22 March 2015 regarding the colour scheme of the child care centre
at the abovementioned location.
The Council’s Environmental Compliance Unit has investigated this matter and found that the
complaint has been substantiated given the colour scheme is not in accordance with the
approved schedule of finishes. As a result, the Council will take further action on this matter.
If you have any queries about this decision, please contact Council during business hours on
9970 1111 or by email at pittwater_council@pittwater.nsw.gov.au.
Posted by Makin Glynis | April 28, 2015, 7:44 amI am thinking about moving to the area. Is there any news about the petition on the 39 low income units proposed for the two blocks of land next to Meriton
Posted by Felicity | February 24, 2015, 5:10 amHi Chris.
Thanks for approaching Pittwater Council, re this. We, the local owners/residents, are drawing up a petition to council and as we get signatures we will definitely mentioning the WRA.
Posted by Warwick Nield | February 6, 2015, 1:53 amWarwick
Thanks for using the blog.
The WRA have made a submission to Pittwater Council on this application. The proposal is far in excess of the LEP and that the street frontage is also not as the Council guidelines. As to who owns the site, this is not of any interest to the WRA, it is the adherence to the outcome of the Strategic Review that is the matter at hand. One wonders what the residents in the flats adjoining think about this proposal. Maybe they should join the WRA!
Posted by Chris Hornsby | February 6, 2015, 12:44 amForgot to add, that this new development is NOT a Meriton project.
Posted by Warwick Nield | February 4, 2015, 11:36 pmHi WRA,
Speaking of Meriton, are you aware that there is a DA before Pittwater Council to develop 39 low income rental units on the 2 housing blocks, right next to the Meriton complex, facing Macpherson Street. The 2 houses were sold last September as knockdown, with council OK for 8 to 9 dwellings on both blocks, or 4 dwellings per block. Now they want 2 three-storey blocks of 39 units, with no balconies or open space.
Posted by Warwick Nield | February 4, 2015, 11:34 pmThanks jennifer,
Gunter, you need to get in touch with the reality of a situation which is totally unsustainable. The infrasrtucture will not support propsed building such as that proposed by Meriton. Perhaps people who have no money to pay for housing should be looking elsewhere and finding something that suits their pockets! The roads, cannot cope with the traffic as it is. The lack of school places makes it increasingly difficult for parents to find suitable placements.
The whole area needs a complete rethink….. and greater density housing is rally not the solution.
Gunter… wake up to yourself!
Posted by Bev | March 21, 2014, 8:51 amThank you for your interest and your comments Gunter however it would appear that you may be unaware of the nature of the residents’ objections. Council and residents are not against development in the Valley that conforms with the Local Environmental Plan, Strategic Review or planning laws. In fact we welcome responsible development that adds to the “livability” of this lovely area. It is very difficult for the existing residents to secure placement for their children in local schools. Residents have reported that their children are in different schools because of the shortage. Our wonderful hospital and other medical services are stretched, roads in and to this area are grossly inadequate for the existing volume of traffic and one road has even been closed for an indefinite period of time. You may never have experienced delays and time in travelling to the city and beyond by bus on a daily basis as many folk do. Do you also realise that the State Emergency Services has not been able to guarantee that residents can be evacuated safely in the event of a flood in some areas that are flood prone and there are concerns that the existing water and sewerage may not be able to cope with overdevelopment? We all agree that construction and jobs are imperative but I am not aware of anything that dictates that construction or jobs need to be only in this area. There is already a good plan for Warriewood that is providing thousands of new homes for the area, including some homes under the affordable housing scheme on Garden and McPherson Street, The WRA agreed to increased densities as recently as 2013 but we do not agree that developers should be able to bypass and ignore properly considered strategic plans for the area by exploiting this potentially dangerous “Pre-Gateway” mechanism. There are many sites across Sydney and New South Wales that may be far better suited to an increase of 300% in the agreed density. Obviously Council, the Joint Regional Planning Panel and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure all agree that spot rezoning is not suitable in this instance.
Posted by Jennifer | March 20, 2014, 2:09 amWhat a narrow minded, egotistical bunch of people you are, not considering the fate of the world and its sustainability. You are sitting pretty, so let all others suffer! The reality of the world is that our population is growing. And it is good for us all that Australia is growing. But shut your eyes to that with your petty suburban self-centredness. Stop construction, stop jobs. Make housing prices go up to total in-affordability due to lack of housing supply. What do you care? Celebrate your victory of economic ignorance, your lack of compassion for Australia!
G.
Posted by Gunter | March 19, 2014, 12:06 amI’m so glad you are out there & organised. I’m joining today! I am a concerned resident of Mona Vale [Kay Close] and my partner and I have been worried about this valley for a couple of years now. He was first on the scene at this terrible petrol truck accident on Mona Vale Road. I rang the ABC radio yesterday and spoke with Linda Motram. The discussion was about the ‘environment’ of this accident and whether this caused added injury or loss of life to those involved! My blood boiled so I rang. I said that this little roundabout on Calorie Corner is under the most enormous pressure. Why? Due to the total overdevelopment of Warriewood Valley. Further, that this little pocket of land has gone from 100’s to many 1000’s of people & cars. I told her we nicknamed this Valley “Meriton Valley”. I couldn’t sleep last night thinking what more I could do. I’ve got to run to work just now but will check back in tonight. I’m in!
Sally
Posted by Sally | October 2, 2013, 10:16 pmDo any readers of this blog have a view on the proposed development of Warriewood Centro? The Committee of the Warriewood Residents Association are interested in members views about this proposal.
Posted by Chris Hornsby President WRA | July 22, 2013, 11:15 amHow connected is the closure of Warriewood Childrens Centre and the new development at Centro? Council says there is no budget to provide both children and youth services for Pittwater. If they could secure a lease in Centro at a reasonable price would it have made it easier for Council to secure a provider?
Is this another case of profit and over community?
Posted by L Daniels | July 26, 2013, 12:01 pmHi Bev, Regrettably the time frames we have to work to are often very tight, and in our haste mistakes can get made. We can but try to do the best we can, and always grateful for any comments that help correct any spelling mistakes. Our moderation policy is simply to edit any comments to remove any parts that we feel could result in legal action against the association or the originator of the comment. I think it has only happened on two occasions, and sorry if it offends, but in today’s litigious climate we all know that everyone has to be very careful what they say in public. Please continue to write to the blog, Pittwater Council and councillors about your concerns.
Posted by Chris Hornsby President Warriewood Residents Association | July 2, 2013, 1:14 amOne should never type in haste as it results in spelling errors. Hope the moderator can fix them up as he/she is so good at editing other comments.
Posted by Bev Wetzler | July 1, 2013, 10:44 pmThank you for bringing this to the attention of the wider community. It seems that we never have a voice as a community and yet, the people whom we vote in, successfully support their own ventures, regardless of the needs of their voters or community.
It makes my blood boli to see what is happening in the valley… after all the lame promises about ‘living the dream’. An easy slogan to alter. ‘Living the nighmare’ is so much more the reality for residents.
Posted by Bev Wetzler | July 1, 2013, 10:40 pmIt was with disappointment that I read “Council Tops in Leisure”, Manly Daily, 19 June 2013.
Pittwater Council and North Narrabeen Sports High School won Parks & Leisure Australia’s NSW/ACT open space development category for the synthetic turf field built at the school last year. Pity that the article didn’t mention that the $1.306 million cost of the field was generously funded from section 94 developer levies raised in the Warriewood Valley. The funds for this field on Department of Education land should not have been expended on a sentimental decision of an outgoing Mayor and Council when the Valley so badly lacked, and still lacks, infrastructure, roadwork etc. This amount could have been more prudently optimized to benefit a much larger cross section of the wider community. The funding of the field should have been the responsibility of the Department and groups using the facility.
Jenny
Posted by Jenny Donaldson | July 1, 2013, 8:59 amI agree with Scott. It would be great to have a list of simple things to do. I’ll start by ringing Julie Grant as you suggest Chris.
Posted by Lynn | May 10, 2013, 7:34 amIt would be great to have a list of simple things we can do to support the effort.
For example
template letter to send to local and state MP.
Link to petition to sign
Social media campaign links
Etc etc
Posted by scott | May 8, 2013, 7:32 amScott
We will get something together.
Posted by Chris Hornsby President WRA | May 9, 2013, 12:24 amWhat I can suggest is that you ring Juliet Grant 92286113 and ask her why the department imposed 32 and spot rezoning on Warriewood. I was told that this is what we wanted. When questioned further I was treated to the usual Yes Minister speak that everything was the previous govt and I was obviously stupid to question the nanny state and a new dawn is upon us all.
This calls for as many people as possible to ring and complain that this is not what we asked for and still is not what we want.
Posted by Chris Hornsby President WRA | May 9, 2013, 5:04 amDo other residents, like me feel that voicing our opinions will make any diference at all? I have always had my say, supoorting the council in their attempts to defeat such terrible planning decisions. I don’t pretend to be an expert in all the strategic decisions that are made but I am a property owner and I worry that my home will be devalued because of Meriton. Like many, I bought into ‘the lifestyle’, a beautiful home in a pleasant location with well-spaced residential homes. I feel very let down by the decsions that are made. They are certainly not in the interests of Pittwater homeowners or the local environment which is well over stretched to cope as is. It’s just in the interests on Meriton’s bank balance. I’m not sure who …….. (edited by moderator)
I say enough is enough. It’s time for the council and planners to say NO! NO MORE high density, multi-level housing. We have more than enough already.
Disgruntled Shearwater Resident.
Posted by Bev | May 6, 2013, 10:18 amI agree with all stated by Bev above, those who have purchased in the valley, want the valley lifestyle promised. If we wanted high rise we could have purchased in Dee Why, Narrabeen, Collaroy, Mona Vale. Plus now the Sector 9 park council wants to rip the size of that park apart for the benefit of developers AGAIN. Not happy Jan. Council must stop making us the residents & the WRA as the troublemakers & get on with what they were voted to do, look after Pittwater for the community not the developers. Yes things need to move forward but not at a cost to the ratepayers we won’t subsides the developers, it must be fair and reasonable on both sides.
Posted by Makin Glynis | June 5, 2015, 4:27 am