PlanningAlerts

3 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

1. I want to object to the application as it currently stands. I have not read any document but given the traffic congestion and the proposed widening of McEvoy street and creation of a clearway, I would have expected it to be mentioned.
   McEvoy Street is going be a major route once WestConnex New M5 opens, indeed the whole idea is to funnel traffic to Moore Park.
   I don't understand why the traffic study does not mention this.
   Also, Air quality should at least be mentioned in the environmental factors section. It would seem that no reports are required but given the existing research evidence on health and vehicle pollution, I would be facing developments away from the road not towards it.
   I wish to be informed about what happens with this development application so that I can consider speaking as a resident.
   It's hard for residents to keep up but when professionals are getting paid to do reports, I would expect that future plans ( that are imminent) should be discussed as well as the existing situation which I believe is about to change.

2. I am repeating my submission as there is a typo and I need to clarify some matters. I object to the application as it currently stands. I have not read EVERY document but I have read the traffic document and some others. I was shocked that the traffic study did not mention the existing traffic congestion or the proposed roadworks on McEvoy street and creation of a clearway, I would have expected it to be mentioned because Council itself has predicted in its submissions to the WestConnex EIS, that a large amount of traffic is going to travel down this route. Indeed the whole idea is to funnel traffic to Moore Park. I think it is debatable whether this site is suitable for the sort of food and drink businesses envisaged - which appear to be facing McEvoy Street.
   I don't understand why the traffic study does not mention this context.
   Also, Air quality should at least be mentioned in the environmental factors section. It would seem that no reports are required but given the existing research evidence on health and vehicle pollution, I think that the impact of traffic pollution on workers and residents should be considered by planners and architects. It is time to start expecting this to be discussed in development applications. Even if no detail monitoring is required, architects should be able to show how health is considered in their designs.
   I wish to be informed about what happens with this development application. I think this sort of matter should be decided by Councillors, not by processes that are not public.
   It's hard for residents to keep up but when professionals are getting paid to do reports, I would expect that future plans ( that are imminent) should be discussed as well as the existing situation which I believe will become even more congested and the cars closer to the places where people are living.

3. This site ,as many in the area, would be more suitable as bulky goods and light industry on the ground. Provide at least 6M ceiling heights so it can be provide a variety of uses instead of more small food outlets and shops which will not survive. Local businesses and people need somewhere to work as more apartments are built ,forcing them out of the area

Have your say on this application

You're too late! The period for officially commenting on this application finished about 5 years ago. If you chose to comment now, your comment will still be displayed here and be sent to the planning authority but it will not be officially considered by the planning authority.

Your comment and details will be sent to City of Sydney. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment