Two areas in particular
Comment is made to the effect that the development not be to concerned about impact on the neighbouring site in terms of its possible redevelopment, as it is governed by two schemes and unlikely to be redeveloped. What arrongance to discount the neighbours in such a fashion. In fact there is a lot of commonality in the schemes and any positive proposal could be looked on favourably. So maybe the developer should stick to good design principles and give recognition of its neighbours rights, not discount and trample on in the name of self-interest.
The other area of focus is traffic management plan. It too smacks of self-interest, especially in casting aside Council planning ratios where it suits.
Encouragement of the use of public transport to the hotel should be lauded though to expect all personnel to get there seems a bit of a fetch. Expect or senior personnel and "special" guests to do so?!
The use of public assets such as a "Loading Zone, "No Parking" and a "coach bay" as options for guests and the servicing of the building is disingenuous.
My expectation is that these three areas were set up for specific purposes, not used a mainstream alternative for guest arrival/departures and the servicing of the building by a developer seeking to avoid putting their own infrastructure in place to support their business.
The "coach bay". Quite possibly established for the bringing of tourists to Chinatown. Recently claimed as an alternative option for another nearby hotel development in Sussex St. That's an expansion of its original use I expect and self-serving. What if well-used according to its original intent. Buses will just double park outside the hotel, partially blocking the street. Maybe buses will do so anyway as the hotel's business pitch probably doesn't include the need for a 200 metre walk to the hotel.
No Parking zone regulations allow for short drop off/pick ups. The said zone has been in there for a while serving the needs of the local residential and business communities. Now a hotel wants to use it as a primary point to service their business. No Parking means no parking for a reason and not as a mainstream option to servicing a business. In theory a queue of taxi's just slip in and out on a continuous basis and it would still be "No Parking", at least in name
Loading Zone regulations allow for proposed mini-buses and waste servicing vehicles. Similar arguments apply. The hotel is seeking mainstream use of this zone for their own purpose with seemingly little regard that they also support the existing communities needs. What if it is well-utilised already? No evidence given. The explosion in parcel delivery tells me it is very well utilised. Will the mini-buses obediently move on to another site away from the hotel? Will the waste vehicles do the same?
What if Council chooses to amend the zoning for these places. Will they be bound to consider the hotels business operations? Or will the needs of the many be addressed over the one who has sought to put their hotel servicing on public infrastructure. This is not a theoretical question. There were zoning changes south of the site when the light rail came in. The tail from those changes often sees cars back to in front of the new hotel, sometimes impeding through traffic. Changing these zones could possibly alleviate that situation, but without the threat of impacting on a hotel that has knowingly chosen to outsource its servicing. A bit hard to turn back the clock on a built structure, but maybe something to be considered.
Servicing of building and number of car spaces. Planning controls equate to five places being provided. Developer argues only one is necessary. An extension of outsourcing to public infrastructure instead of providing themselves. Where are all the service providers going to park their trucks, vans etc. Do they honestly think an 18 storey building is capable of being serviced by multiple providers at any one time with the use of just one car space? A neighbouring building has service personnel constantly and consistently having to park on the street, as they do not have access to building parking. Be it plumbers, lift mechanics, HVAC, fire, trade maintenance etc personnel there is a consistent ask for building access, and which has been only accommodated by street parking(that is no fault of the number of spaces provisioned in the building, it is because of a dispute over access, for which service personnel have been denied). So all these service personnel end up on the street in loading zones, the same loading zones earmarked for mini-buses, waste vehicles etc.
Again it is this outsourcing to public infrastructure that is of concern. This infrastructure should not be there to underpin the hotel's operation; it should be ancillary to it. Yes, it may mean a few less rooms but that goes with the obligations
Finally, the report makes reference to a traffic report assessment for 115 Bathurst St as a guide/benchmark. Surely by now they could use actuals rather than build on an assessment, which may not reflect reality. Building on shaky foundations is not a great idea!
So in short it is the dependency on public infrastructure that is of concern, particularly where it comes to servicing the building. And this concern is not just specific to this development. I would equally argue as such for the other recent development application for a hotel at 388-390 Sussex St. Their applications both are premised on utilising existing public infrastructure to support their businesses, infrastructure that already supports the many local businesses and residences,. This development application falls short on taking responsibility for adequately servicing the building from their own asset, witnessed by their attempt to justify a lower standard than that set down by Council
