Where to for Warriewood
If you've been browsing our website recently you'll have noticed the Warriewood Valley Strategic Review prominently displayed on the home page. Along with the NSW Department of Planning, we're at the beginning of a six month process of talking to our community about future development in the Warriewood area. In early July we hosted three community meetings for those with an active interest in Warriewood. These are residents and business-owners living in already developed areas and landowners who own undeveloped sites they're wishing to sell or develop in Warriewood.
The issues covered at these information sessions were building heights and density, infrastructure needs - in particular road networks - and managing risk, especially that posed by flood-prone land. We asked those attending what they thought about commercial and residential development in the future and where those developments could occur. The role of Warriewood Centro and what other businesses could operate adjacent to the shopping centre is in the spotlight, as is the question of which areas should be left untouched as public open space.
You might be concerned about development in Warriewood, particularly given the recent history of development proposals in Boondah Road. If that's the case you should be aware that this review is a direct result of those approvals and has been recommended by the state government's Planning Assessment Commission.
Part of the bigger picture is the need for Sydney to accommodate more people in outlying suburbs beyond the city ring. We are a part of Sydney and there's no escaping that responsibility, which has been articulated for many years through the Department of Planning's 'Metro Strategy'. In spite of the change of government, there'll be no significant change to that plan to manage Sydney's growth. This was reiterated by Minister Brad Hazzard just last month.
As an interesting aside to this, have a look at this article published recently on the Sydney Morning Herald's website. It seems that recent research has found Australians aren't as in love with the traditional dream of a home on a quarter-acre block as they once were, mainly due to the cost.
Whatever your view, we'll be giving you a range of ways to give feedback on how much growth Warriewood can withstand in the future. You can find out more by visiting our website or have your say on my blog!
What kind of homes would you like to see in Warriewood in the future?
What areas should be left undeveloped?
Is there a future for more businesses along Jacksons Road?
Posted 11 July 2011
Would you like to comment?
TERMS & CONDITIONS - This blog is authored by Mark Ferguson, General Manager of Pittwater Council. Views expressed in the blog are not necessarily the views of Pittwater Council. All comments will be reviewed before posting and any defamatory, discriminatory or unrelated comment/s removed. Comments will be posted on the next available business day and should relate to the blog topic.
Regardless of the Meriton development I do not believe Council should be looking to change the DCP to allow development with more than 2 storeys and more density. Keep it the way it is. The valley already doesn’t resemble what Pittwater is all about and more density with more height is not the answer. Roads into and out of the valley cannot cope with the extra traffic that more density brings.
Posted by Ross of Manly Vale - 12 July 2011
Having lived in pittwater for all of my life, a proposal for apartments in Warriewood would allow me to down size. Apartments in Warriewood would also allow younger people to remain in the area.
Posted by Arkhad of Pittwater - 14 July 2011
I can tell you definitely what type of homes I do NOT want to see built in Warriewood. The prime example of a development which does not comply with the DCP for Warriewood and which should never have been approved by the Planning Panel, and NO more of this density should be approved, is at 14 Boondah Rd. These are the tallest building approved in Warriewood and on the highest knoll on the Valley floor. When designing their developments, developers should comply with the DCP for Warriewood Valley. The DCP has been the Guideline for all other developments and has proved to be acceptable and workable and the Valley is very "liveable". That is the all we can ask for and it's what is equitable for those who have already invested in the Valley.
Posted by Lynne Czinner of Warriewood - 21 October 2011
What we do not need is development that is driven purely by apartment ‘investors’. I do not want to see any more buildings such as those currently being built at 14-18 Boondah Road. They already overwhelm the valley and it is only the first stage! We need to ensure that any future structures in the valley meet the following conditions: adequate set back from the street, neighbouring properties, and from each other internally on the site; sufficient green space in and around each building; adequate onsite parking; AND NO MORE than two storeys high! We already have a very effective LEP and DCP that provides a medium density mix of both units and townhouses in the valley that has proven to be very popular with all age demographics. In conclusion, WE NEED GOOD, APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT that will attract people to the area, make them want to stay permanently and become part of our community.
Posted by Cathy of Warriewood - 23 November 2011
The GM uses an article in the SMH to push the line that the cost of appropriate developments is expensive. As anyone in business knows the cost of land is what someone will pay for it. The cost of land is controlled by the DCP. Further,I suggest you visit the project down the road and see what they consider affordable living and compare that of the cost of a town house in the area. The only winner is the absent developer and therefore I am disappointing that you and council continue to push the development agenda that is outside the DCP. You can blame the Dept of Planning if they impose a DCP but please defend the current DCP. We the rate payers and owners of Pittwater Council are not interested in the developers profit and therefore don't want it changed and it is about time our views were considered.
Posted by Chris Hornsby of Warriewood - 30 Jan 2012
RESPONSE FROM PITTWATER COUNCIL
Thanks for your comment Chris. Pittwater Council has a track record of following the DCP/planning framework for the Valley. One our main objections to the Part 3A development proposal at 14-18 Boondah Road were the unsatisfactory outcomes from its deviation from the DCP/planning framework. After the Boondah Road development was approved by the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) we appealed the decision to the Land and Environment Court. Our appeal was based on variances from density standards and the DCP and (in Council's opinion) the errors of judgement that the PAC made. The strategic review is testing current densities as a result of the PAC's recommendation. There has been no decision made by Council on this review . Any decision will be made mindful of maintaining the amenity of current landowners and residents of the Valley, providing adequate infrastructure and compatibility with the existing character of the area.
Posted by Mark Ferguson - General Manager - 30 Jan 2012
I am very worried about the protected increase in dwelling density and the change of green spaces into block of buildings. I like the area as it is, with all the public parks and houses with big open areas and not a crowded area of buildings. I enjoy walking 2 blocks from my home and see horses being kept on someones "yard" or look bush area from my terrace and not more buildings. I hope that our representatives act in the interest of current residents and not in the interest of builders. Thank you
Posted by Fernando Charnis of Warriewood = 8 Feb 2012
We are very concerned about the proposed high density developments (eg Meritons) in our suburb. We bought into this area about 10years ago believing the area was zoned for single residential dwelling homes with some scattered multi residential development but nowhere near the double density as proposed now. We are not in favour of this at all. I know that your council wants to increase the density to satisfy the state government's housing targets and we are just the casualties. We want to know if the section 94 contributions will be going towards the upgrade of the roads and footpaths and improved open space. If not, why not? We are very very angry that we have been dudded.
Posted by Thomas Lau of Warriewood - 8 Feb 2012
RESPONSE FROM PITTWATER COUNCIL
Thomas, Council objected to and 'fought' the "higher Density" Meritons development before both the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) and before the Land and Environment Court. A principal concern was the higher density. Council has made no statement that it wishes to increase density in the Valley to satisfy the State Governments targets. Council is participating in a review of the Valley with the Department of Planning as such was recommended by the PAC. Income received via the Section 94 plan must be spent on the works noted in the plan.
Posted by Mark Ferguson - General Manager - 9 Feb 2012
Is Pittwater Council so bankrupt that it is willing to comprise the quality of life of its ratepayers? I find it unbelievable that Council is considering further high-density development (over-development) of the Warriewood Valley without firstly ensuring that the infrastructure can be provided. Roads are now ridiculously choked and parking a rarity in commercial areas. Can common sense please rule over Council's relentless pursuit of development dollard?
Posted by JayEss of Warriewood - 8 Feb 2012
RESPONSE FROM PITTWATER COUNCIL
JayEss, Council spent many years developing a strategy for development of the Warriewood valley, The strategy/planning framework contained a vision for the future of the Valley relating to density of development . open space, creek line corridors, traffic management, water management and urban design. Council is proud of the form of development in the Valley and has won awards for such. It is not surprising that the residents of the Valley are likewise proud of their area . The reason the Council is participating in a review of the Valleys density is because the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) ,when it approved the Meriton development in Boondah road, strongly recommended that the State Government and Pittwater Council do a review. A principal concern as to why Council objected to the development in its submission and address to the PAC was the concern relating to the density of Meriton proposal and the impacts on community expectations ,amenity and infrastructure. .Council also sought to have the approval by PAC overturned in the Land and Environment Court. You can be assured that when the review is finalised Council will give careful consideration to the amenity of the residents and impacts on infrastructure.
Posted by Mark Ferguson - General Manager - 9 Feb 2012
I see that Boondah Road playing fields make up part of the Southern Buffer Zone. Does this mean that they are likely to disappear under more high density housing, or be taken over by an expansion of Warriewood Centro? If so, what are council's plans for the replacement of this community asset? There isn't a lot of level open space in Pittwater as it is. Also, can you give any indication of the time frame for potential development?
Posted by Chris Farquharson of Bayview - 10 Feb 2012
RESPONSE FROM PITTWATER COUNCIL
Chris, The playing fields in Boondah Road ,along with Council's depot, Community buildings and some private properties are located within the area known as the "Southern Buffer Area" This name reflects its location within a "buffer area" to the "Sewage Treatment Plant". The area along with other sites within the broader area of Warriewood Valley are the subject of review by the Department of Planning and Pittwater Council. The findings of the review have not been finalised or released. An important part of Council's consideration of any potential for increased density of development is the provision of accessible active and passive recreation opportunities for the residents of the Valley. The review of the Valley by the Department and Council will be reported as soon as finalised. See the Warriewood Valley Strategic Webpage for updates.
Posted by Mark Ferguson - General Manager - 14 Feb 2012
Mark, thanks for your response, but you've given me a link back to the page I came from to find this blog and not really answered my questions (although I understand that while this is all under review, a definite answer may be difficult). All I really wanted to know was: is there any possibility that Boondah Reserve may disappear under more housing or an expansion of Warriewood Centro at some point in the future? The reason for my question is that you talk in your opening statement about the possibility of businesses operating 'adjacent to the shopping centre' and I don't see too much other adjacent land. I would be most concerned about the potential loss of this community facility, especially with an increasing population in the area. This public open space should be explicitly ruled out of any future redevelopment or significant change of use.
Posted by Chris Farquharson of Bayview - 16 Feb 2012
RESPONSE FROM PITTWATER COUNCIL
Open space is a valuable community commodity . The Council's long held position in the Valley's development is that developers of new housing should provide for increased and embellished open space for new residents. The Strategic Review Project Scope document at Point 6 in the 'Major Tasks' section states that the review will 'Test potential footprint options for the Southern Buffer area ensuring that the connected open space recreational precinct is enhanced and is complimentary to, and compatible with, adjoining land uses." The Strategic Review of Warriewood Valley is not yet complete and Council has not considered any of the consultants findings. At this stage it's anticipated that a report on the progress of the Review will be presented to the Council at its meeting of 19 March 2012.
Posted by Mark Ferguson - General Manager - 16 Feb 2012
What is the general view of the current Valley land owners, I see from the map many parcels of land, some land may never be developed and retained for many years by incumbent owners. Are a high percentage keen to move on a see development? Regards Mark. what is the general view of the current Valley land owners, I see from the map many parcels of land, some land may never be developed and retained for many years by incumbent owners. Are a high percentage keen to move on a see development?
Posted by Mark Hamilton of Warriewood - 1 March 2012
RESPONSE FROM PITTWATER COUNCIL
Thanks for your comment. It's hard to accurately estimate what interest there is by landowners in developing their land. Individual landowners make decisions as to whether to develop based on many personal and financial reasons which can occur at different times.
Posted by Mark Ferguson - General Manager - 2 March 2012
What considerations are being given for how the local schools will cope under the planned high density housing? These housing types will mean more families and children needing schooling in the area. The local schools are already increasing with enrolments every year and are needing to expand into the children's play/recreation areas for more classrooms. The wider impact of more people in this area needs to have a higher focus.
Posted by J Bennett of Warriewood - 26 Mar 2012
Disappointing that census data from 2006 was used in the traffic planning report. I've lived in the Valley almost 8 years and my commute South takes longer and the morning peak starts earlier each year. The recent addition of bus lanes has added 5-10 minutes to each journey. How can adding all those extra dwelling have minimal impact? Sure I can catch a bus if I want to assure myself over a 3hr commute to North Sydney and return each day.
Posted by Julie of Warriewood - 29 Mar 2012
Unfortunately I was unable to attend the Community Briefing Session last night at Pittwater RSL to voice my disapproval in what I have read in the Strategic Review. I, like many other Warriewood residents purchased our "homes" in Warriewood Valley with a very different understanding of its future. There are many different issues that are going to affect residents with overdevelopment including: 1. Travel times to the city. I commute to the city every week day, leaving my car at "Warriewood Park & Ride" on Pittwater Road, which is already at capacity. On the buses it is mostly crammed standing room only for more than 1 hour. 2. The roads to the city already cannot handle extra buses/cars, especially from Sydney Rd onwards 3. Local schools are already at capacity, some with waiting lists and no room for expansion. 4.Warriewood Shopping Centre has many traffic and parking issues already. 5.Garden Street is used as a "rat run" 6.New houses generally use their garages for storage. 7. Garages are used for storage due to small land sizes, hence cars parked on streets. I have to do a 3 point turn to leave my driveway. 8. Increased density/ townhouses at 9 Orchard Street. My residence backs onto this and definitely not impressed. I was advised by the current land owner that a large bush fire came through here in the late 80's, therefore no vegetation planted since, yet you plan to increase density?? 9. It seems all large parcels of land in Warriewood Valley are purchased by developers with an obvious plan to make the largest profit as possible to the detriment of existing residents. 10. Even with your traffic reports, it is only going to get worse, with no room for increased traffic.
Posted by Brett Walsh of Warriewood - 4 April 2012
I have lived in this area for almost 50 years and am so disappointed when I see the level of development. Construction sites going higher than were proposed. The valley was known for it's open spaces, green houses, poplar trees and horse paddocks.. Now only buildings and more buildings and more destruction of our bush and wetlands. A quick drive anywhere on the northern beaches is now a mere memory as our road infrastructure fail to keep up with the overdevelopment. Pleas stop destroying the beauty of the northern beaches area.
Posted by Linda Beuzeville of Mona Vale - 11 April 2012
There are so many problems with the continued over development of Warriewood Valley. Where to start! Where are all these new residents going to park. 1 and 2 bedroom units are only required to have 1 parking space. Come on, we know that most of these units will have 2 cars per unit, so where do the extra cars park. The park and ride and buses are already full to overflowing, so where do the extra Warriewood residents fit in? Schools? Mona Vale PS is full and Narrabeen North PS is very small with limited room for expansion So were do all these new children go? Remembering, if you live in a school's area you cannot be turned away, so how do the schools house the extra students. I doubt Mona Vale Hospital could cope with the new influx of residents either. The list of problems with the infrastructure goes on and on. One last very important fact, Warriewood Valley mostly consists of single or double level dwellings, we are a small community and WE LIKE IT THAT WAY.
Posted by L Mitchell of Warriewood - 14 April 2012
RESPONSE FROM PITTWATER COUNCIL
Thank you for your comments.
There is a Question & Answer page on our website at http://www.pittwater.nsw.gov.au/yoursay/home/warriewood_valley_strategic_review/your_questions_answered where many of the answers to questions posed by the public can be found.
All comments on this blog received during the exhibition period (until 18 May 2012) will be considered as submissions to the Draft Strategic Review Report and taken into account before any final decision on the review findings is made
Posted by Mark Ferguson - General Manager - 16 April 2012
On page 73 of the review it states “There may be opportunities for higher densities in certain sectors through site amalgamation. These opportunities are detailed in Appendix 5.” In Appendix 5 with amalgamating sectors the 'workshop decisions' recommends densities of 38/ha in sectors 301,302 & 303, 36/ha in buffer sectors 1b, 1c, 1d & 1e, 55/ha in buffer sectors 1f, 1g & 1h and 53/ha in buffer sectors 1i, 1j & 1k. This would add a further 164 dwellings. It would also leave the density in some parts decided but in others uncertain and therefore open to abuse. Can council guarantee this will not occur?
Posted by Susan of Warriewood - 23 April 2012
To quote from page 223 of the Council agenda of 21 March 2011 The major findings of the draft Pittwater Local Planning Strategy include "That it is likely that the 2031 housing target can be met under the existing planning regime, such that there is no short to medium term need for planning initiatives to increase the supply of housing" If this is the case why is there a recommendation of staff to increase the number of dwellings in Warriewood to, at a minimum, 269. This number assumes there are no amalgamations of land?
Posted by Lynne Czinner of Warriewood - 23 April 2012
From the draft Local Planning Strategy, Council agenda 21 March 2011, I note that the Draft Planning Strategy "recommends the establishment of an enterprise corridor at North Narrabeen, with appropriate zoning adopted under a future Standard Instrument LEP." Is this to be in the vicinty of the Jackson St / Pittwater Rd intersection on the east side? This seems like the only suitable place in North Narrabeen as if the west side of Pittwater Rd and Oak St were rezoned the "enterprise centre" would overlook the Primary School. No good between the Service Station and the High School--flood prone, only access is off busy Pittwater Rd? Or does North Narrabeen really mean Warriewood including where the Community Centre is now? Also flood prone. Warriewood Square will suffer if a centre the same size is built here. Note, the Strategy " promotes the continued viability of centres that serve the needs of the local community." Exactly what does Council propose in this vicinity?
Posted by Lynne Czinner of Warriewood - 23 April 2012
I have read a lot of letters of complaint re the valley The Biggest problem i have is Meritons Blatant Disregard for the Council/ The people of Pittwater/ Infastructer/ Let alone Warriwood Sewrage plant . It already spills out raw with big rains What about that.Schools/ Then theres Mona Hospital , Take it to Frenches Forest? Are they Kidding. And at the moment Garden street is aDisgrace. Shame Shame Shame
Posted by Steve Forrest of Elanora Heights - 24 April 2012
Are they kidding? Aren't there enough opportunities for buying goods in Pittwater/Warringah? Do we really need more shops? Local retailers, from Warriewood Centro to small businesses don't need more competition. Besides which, buildings on Jacksons Road will do away with the low-key community buildings and the large open grassed space behind them (where the circuses set up and also used as a sports field).
Posted by Merryn of Warriewood - 3 May 2012
I have already registered my formal objection to the proposals in the Warriewood Valley Strategic Review. From the articles which have appeared in the press recently, on the occasion of the 20th Anniversary, the Council appears to be very proud of its achievements to date. I ask: In the future, do the current Mayor and Councillors want to be remembered by the people of Warriewood and Pittwater for these achievements, or for their legacy of ugly and inappropriate over-development in the Warriewood Valley should it be approved and proceed at the rate proposed in the Review?
Posted by J Donaldson of Warriewood - 9 May 2012
Warriewood valley strategic review- council information regarding this proposed development does not provide why the zoning has changed with the increased denisty and how they will accurately address traffic, parking issues for a current suburbane area. Height of all building in this area must be 2 storey, unless they want an urban blight like Dee Why
Posted by Paul Burkett of Warriewood - 10 May 2012
We live in Garden St, and when we bought our property we were told that the western side of Garden St (sector 9) would be built at 15 dwellings per Ha. In 2010 the revision of the Warriewood Valley Planning Framework increased this to 25 dwellings per Ha. What is the possible justification for increasing this again to 32 or 36 dwellings per Ha just 2 years later. It is suggested that this is to increase the viability of development and get development happening again in the valley, but the Hill PDA report ( Pages 24 &25) commissioned for the review says development will be LESS feasible at this increased density.
Posted by Paul & Gillian Waterhouse of Warriewood - 14 May 2012
I am opposed to the proposed development of 32 dwellings/HA in Warriewood for 3 reasons. 1. According to information, the plans have allowed for only a single garage per residence. As a local resident in a townhouse in Warriewood, with a double garage, it has become evident that 1 car garage is insufficient as most people living in the area have at least 2 cars per residence. Further, in these small residences there is usually a storage issue and the garage is used for storage rather than parking. Where will the cars be parked, where will visitors park? Warriewood Road will become a car lot and be unsightly. 2. There hasn't been enough green park areas or walkways for residents to enjoy. If such an unsightly overdevelopment was to go ahead, Warriewood would become an ugly area that you wouldn't want to walk around. Presently the current walkways in the shearwater estate and other park areas make for attractive areas to get out of your home and take family and pets to. 3. Visially 32 and 37 dwellings / HA will be unsightly 'monopoly like' terrace houses, reminiscent of the poorer areas in the UK. This overdevelopment is completely unnecessary and will make Warriewood a place to avoid living, it's already getting that reputation where people literally groan at the ugliness of the current existing developments. Can the Council provide a future development that is visually pleasing with thought given to quality of life for those living there? Thank you.
Posted by Megan Donald of Warriewood - 17 May 2012
It certainly seems from listening to and reading Warriewood Community comments, that the majority view is that the current Warriewood DCP guidelines are considered to be fair and equitable and should continue to be enforced. Warriewood residents, myself included, are very content with the healthy community spirit and way of life resulting from limiting urban development to two storey homes, freestanding and terrace/townhouses. We do not want this compromised by overdevelopment. We certainly object to cramming in high rise apartments of 60 dwellings per hectare. Even an increase from what many of us consider to be a relatively high housing density of 22 dwellings per hectare, up to 36 dwellings per hectare is of considerable concern. Certainly, let us continue to develop land designated for the purpose under the current DCP guidelines but do not increase densities and open the doors to high profit developers who will endeavour to destroy the comfortable urban density and way of life that we all enjoy. I have lived in Dubai in the UAE for over 20 years and have seen what a disaster that over development can cause. Even with 5 lanes in each direction, the freeways become log jammed daily. In Warriewood, we are not developing the barren desert but are striving to control housing and infrastructure development to levels that are in keeping with the DCP and existing dwelling densities. Even at 22-26 dwellings per hectare, traffic can get heavy on the existing poorly maintained inner roads. Consider the impact of increasing density to 36/hectare and the huge increased demand on roads and transportation. It must be stressed that even development at current DCP levels on available land will put a huge strain on the three main arterial roads that are the only ways off the Northern Beaches peninsula, two of these roads are still single lane, namely the Wakehurst Parkway and Mona Vale Road. Lets keep things manageable and maintain the current DCP guideline densities.
Posted by Andre Piaskowski of Warriewood - 17 May 2012
Given the highly inappropriate density of the Meriton 'Oceanvale' Development (forced on the Pittwater Community by the former State Government's absurd planning laws) will already result in a much larger than planned for number of dwellings, surely the only outcome of the Warriewood Strategic Review should be a REDUCTION in the previously planned dwellings under the current DCP. By comparison, any increase in the housing density will only compound the strain on infrastructure that Warriewood Valley is already facing. It is a great shame that despite the significant community outrage and expenditure of ratepayers funds by Pittwater Council fighting Meriton in the Land & Environment Court, this gross overdevelopment of Warriewood is proceeding to destroy the unique character of the valley. However, it would be an even greater shame if the outcome of the Warriewood Strategic Review was to miss an opportnity to decrease the housing density in the remaining undeveleoped land.
Posted by Simon Dunn of Warriewood - 18 May 2012
No results were found