Views on top four centres

If we don't increase available housing then we are forcing our children to move out of the region.

We need smarter government, NSW Government has too much fat and we also have too many duplicating local councils. For example, there should be just one local council for the entire northern beaches. Save on wasted over governing costs and red tap and redirect these savings towards end services such as more police on the streets, hospital/nursing home staff, etc, etc and more transport and infrastructure.

As a start, there should be a healthy bonus to public servants who identify wasted resources and also provide a workable alternative solution. At present they are encouraged to fully spend their budgets to ensure they are not cut the following year.

In summary: More housing for the sake of our children, smarter leaner less costly government and more end-services, infrastructure and transport.

Absolutely! If not, they will be back in 10 years looking to add another 20,000 dwellings.

Kevin Rudd was in favour of a 'big Australia' and he got kicked out! Now is the time to have the debate about what our population size should be, not just accept what the lame duck State Government tells the council to accommodate

It would be great if council could stand up and say no to the current State Government. Unfortunately under the current labour government Council are in a no win situation. If Council take that approach which most of us agree with, then the planning decisions and rezoning will be taken out of their hands as it was for Kur-ring-gai Council.

Kur-ring-gai now have multi storey high rise develoments clustered in amongst heritage listed homes. The only way to stop inappropriate future ghettos in our suburbs is to vote the goverment out.

The NSW Liberal party have said that they will rewrite the planning act and most importantly remove part 3A of the act which currently gives the Planning Minister power to overide Council decision making in major developments. Pittwater Council was bypassed by Mirvac using Part 3A of the act and now Warriewood Valley is going to have nine storey high rise developments .

If this is correct then I think we are entitled to have Council ask the State Government to justify their numbers. Increased housing also means increased transport in and out of the area which is a State government responsibility they have been shirking for years. Any increased housing should be linked to transport upgrades. Car traffic over the Spit bridge barely functions in morning peak hours at present. I'd hate to think what this costs in wasted petrol and carbon footprints.

While I've lived in the area we have been given proposals for Spit bridge upgrades, light rail from the city, tunnels connecting to the Harbour tunnel and a rail link from Chatswood via Frenchs Forest to Dee Why. Nothing has happened with any of them.

Of course the question would then be do we want more traffic connections to the Peninsula? If anything I would think only a public tranport connection would be possible or acceptable, and any planning should guarantee a decrease in car traffic. On the whole I would agree with rhjames and bwonna. I think if Council can link transport planning to increased housing we won't have to worry about providing that extra housing.

Certain city centres in Warringah are already overcrowded without future thought for infrastructure problems.

The State Govt. takes a blind approach and adopts fraudulent feasibility studies focused on infrastructure impacts e.g. traffic impacts of DY town centre project and expects the existing rate payers to sit on their hands.

When will we have a council who has the guts to say no to the high and mighty ministers who play the "lets push this button game"?

As long as it above the flood plain level this sounds like a good idea. Maybe it could include a pedestrian bridge over Pittwater Road straight into Warringah Mall. While the other locations have local shopping centres, in the end I would guess most people in the region will go to the Mall at least a couple times a month. So the more housing that can be located within walking distance to the largest shopping centre in the area the better for traffic.

Is the area you are referring to in Manly Vale? If so it was considered the most suitable place in Ward B to accommodate future growth at the 'Talk of the Town' community forum with a 48% vote.

If more dwellings must be provided, there is some sense to having higher density residential development at North Manly (Freshwater West) between the Mall and east of Kentwell Road. That area is easy walking distance to Warrinah Mall, Brookvale industrial area and major bus transport. But the same is true of North Manly on the western side of Condamine Street (Lower Allambie), lower Beacon Hill north of the Mall, and similarly all the land 500 m either side of Pittwater Road to manly Wharf, and 500 m either side of Condamine Street through Manly Vale and Balgowlah to the Totem more…

Unfortunately the community were given very little choice when identifying these areas for council at 'Talk of the Town'. Essentially we were told that Council had no choice in the matter and as a community we had to identify areas most suitable for accommodating future growth. No growth wasnt an option. Two of the guest speakers indicated that future housing targets should be located adjacent to existing public transport. Warringah Road from Pittwater Road will soon become gridlocked as Narraweena explodes with a couple of thousand new homes. Forest way cannot accommodate any traffic increase from any direction during peak hour.