121-133 Burwood Rd & 38-40 Railway Parade Burwood

I sent the following objection in to Burwood Council on 17/2/2015 asking that they acknowledge that my objection will be considered in their submission to the JRPP. They have not done this, hence my objection is provided below.

Dietrich Willing

Objection to Development Application 2014.149 Burwood Council
17 February 2015

I object to the proposed development on six grounds

1. Access to the site for cars and trucks using Clarendon Place is not viable as Clarendon Place roadway is too small in width.

Clarendon Place has a width of 198cm including guttering and a width of 150cm between yellow marker lines separating the gutter from the roadway pavement. This has proven to be just sufficient for cars approaching each other in opposite directions to pass each other slowly.

For Clarendon Place to be the entry and exit point for all cars and trucks accessing the site, the roadway will have to be widened. The minimum width for a carriageway is 300cm which suggests Clarendon Place should be at least 600cm in width.

The proponent has indicated it is proposing to provide a setback along Clarendon Place of up to 2 metres from the site boundary and would construct a footpath, the land on which it stands would be under the control of Burwood Council via an easement.

To obtain the requisite road width, the proponent should provide an easement to Burwood Council of whatever is required so a roadway of sufficient width is provided.

2. With a proposed 145 retail car spaces and 143 residential and serviced apartment car spaces in the site, the traffic density using the intersection of Clarendon Place and Railway Parade may indicate traffic control signals at this intersection, which are not included in the development application.

If traffic control signals are not accepted, the carriageway separation on Railway Parade should be extended so as to stop traffic heading in an easterly direction along Railway Parade turning right into Clarendon Place.

I note no traffic report has been provided by the proponent although in the Statement on Environmental Effects (page 37) the proponent says,
“A Transport, Traffic and Parking Impact Report and Management Plan prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced professional in traffic and transport is submitted with the application.”

When I asked Burwood Council through the Governance Officer, Yolanda Tome, she was only able to provide me with memo from Gennaoui Consulting Pty Ltd that reviews the parking layout and loading facility associated to the proposed development.
So no Transport, Traffic and Parking Impact Report and Management Plan has been provided, contrary to what the proponent has stated in the Statement on Environmental Effects.

3. The amended Burwood Development Control Plan (4 March 2014) section 3.6.2 Site Isolation, provision P2 states that,

“the applicant is required to demonstrate that negotiations between the owners of the properties commenced at an early stage that was prior to the lodgement of the Development Application. Where no satisfactory result is achieved, the Development Application must include evidence of negotiations with the owners of the properties.”

And further,
“These details must include offers to such owners. Such offers are to be reasonable and are to be based on at least one recent independent valuation and include other reasonable expenses likely to be incurred in the sale of the process.”
The Statement of Environmental Effects claims “Suitable documentation which supports attempts to enter into negotiations for the applicant to acquire the site is provided with the development application.”

This documentation has been provided to me by the Governance Officer for Burwood Council. It consists of two letters sent to the owner in July and August of 2012 by Simon Alam of Town and County Real Estate, claiming to have been appointed by Blairgrove Pty Ltd.

As the development application was made on the 22nd September 2014, these letters were created more than two years before the development application was made.

The first letter requests a meeting to discuss the sale of the isolated property. The second letter is a reminder for the first.

This is not evidence of negotiation. It is evidence of an attempt to contact the owner of the isolated property, but nothing more.

The proponent should be requested to enter into good faith discussions with the isolated property owner before any further consideration of the application.

4. It is claimed there will be two car wash bays at the site but I could find only one in the plans. The plans should be amended to show the location of both car wash bays.

5. The application claims to collect water from 689 sq m of roof area, 257 sq m of impervious area and 432 sq m of garden / lawn area. The plans show a rainwater tank on the roof but no rainwater tank on the podium where the 432 sq m of garden / lawn is located.

6. The proponent claims an unloading site is to be located on the site where the hotel is located. See Drawing : Burwood DCP Control Plan, Drawing No. DA-102, Revision 4.
Is the proponent building a platform above the hotel to act as an unloading zone? If so, what are the safety implications to hotel guests and staff?

Other Issues that must be considered before allowing the development

1. I note that at the Extraordinary Council Meeting of Friday 25 July 2003 the proponent successfully argued to change the council rate category from Business D to either Business A or Business B for businesses using the site.

The Council should review which council rate category businesses at the re-developed site will have before approval of the Development Application is given so as to ensure the proponent and prospective tenants are clearly aware of council rates at the site.

2. Burwood Plaza has a right of use to a portion of Clarendon Place, a portion that will be traffic controlled during building and will be part of the traffic artery into the site. The use is parking a vehicle with trailer that holds shopping trolleys and unloading those trolleys. The right of use may be by agreement with Burwood Council or it may be a de facto right. Whatever the case, an alternative site to unload trolleys must be determined and agreed with Burwood Plaza before the development application is approved.

3. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation by Douglas Partners dated May 2012 suggests that vibration monitoring on adjacent buildings is provided. A condition of consent should specify that vibration monitoring occur on adjacent buildings, that a specified maximum peak particle velocity at the foundation level be set, that data from the vibration monitoring equipment be freely provided to the neighbours and that the applicant pay reasonable costs for the neighbours to interpret that data.

Dietrich Willing
1/33 Belmore Street
Burwood NSW 2134
Ph 0400 888 431