A WHITEBRIDGE mother-of-two has spoken out against the latest plans for a high-end, medium density housing development in the suburb's main street.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
She is particularly concerned about the conversion of a proposed public park and playground to a private one.
Laurie Mascord lives in Station Street with her two young children Noah and Molly.
She is an active member of the Whitebridge Community Alliance, which formed about 18 months ago in response to plans for a 91-lot, four-storey apartment block on Dudley Road.
Ms Mascord said a public park would have been great for her children.
"[Now] they will hear other children playing in the [private] park and I'll have to tell them, 'no, you can't play in there'," she said.
Ms Mascord believes a private park will create a divide among the development's potential residents and the rest of the neighbourhood.
"It's not conducive to community cohesion," she said.
Developer SNL Building Constructions submitted updated plans to Lake Macquarie council last Monday in response to council and community feedback.
Previously SNL had requested the council accept a park as public open space in lieu of developer contributions but it was refused.
A council spokesperson said offsets were not recommended as council required monetary contributions to meet recreation needs of the development's population.
She said an offset could be considered if the proposed facilities met recreation needs of residents and council's minimum facility requirements.
"In this case, proposed Lot 26 is zoned 'conservation', and will not fulfil open space recreation needs. The playground (marked Lot 25) does not meet council's minimum facility requirements . . . and is positioned in a location within the development, which is not readily open and visible for use by the wider community," the spokesperson said. In the latest plans, the two lots have been kept within the development.
SNL approvals co-ordinator Wade Morris said via a plan amendment, the park would "need to remain in private ownership with restrictions on access".