PlanningAlerts

10 Comments

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

1. The residents of Epping participated in the lengthy Epping Urban Activation process. The Department of Planning formulated development guidelines that informed the LEP's for Hornsby and Parramatta council. All developers where aware of the constraints and form their own commercial decisions based on these contraints. To allow amendments to an LEP for private commercial reasons will make a mockery of the original planning process and break faith with the community.
   I would strongly urge that any change to the LEP be rejected out of hand.

2. I would implore the Council and the Department of Planning and Environment to respect and uphold Council regulations. The way developers are now using the Gateway Process makes a mockery of the rules and regulations set by council. Setbacks, frontages, building heights, building/land ratios, etc, should be set in stone. It is becoming increasingly common for developers to try to bend and change the rules, or ignore them, and unfortunately they seem often to be successful. I support Craig Watson in urging that any change to the LEP be rejected.

3. I agree with the comments made by Craig Watson and Sue Simmonds. A number of local residents sent submissions to Hornsby Council against this planning proposal and were happy when Hornsby Council knocked it back. This development will bring an additional 654 dwellings, 1,635 new residents and 860 car spaces to this parcel of land. The main driveway access for the development will be in Forest Grove which will result in major traffic flow problems for this quiet back street which is not designed for this level of traffic. Street parking is already at capacity in Forest Grove so it is unclear where residents who do not have garages will park. Concerns were also raised about the high rise buildings (20, 22, 18 storeys) proposed blocking sunlight to Forest Park. I hope the NSW Joint Regional Planning Panel will review all these matters thoroughly and consult with local residents about why this development will diminish our qualify of life and why we oppose it going ahead. That is not to mention it also represents loss of open recreational space adjacent to Forest Park and demolition of the beautiful classic unit block on Epping Road. Local residents are also concerned about what the developer's proposal means by 'embellishment' to Forest Park. Does this represent further felling of trees? I hope the Gateway process, in this instance, is not a 'rubber stamp' exercise for the developer to get their rezoning approved. Does anyone know if the Gateway process ever results in the rejection of an application? When will sanity be restored to Sydney's urban planning and development processes?

4. I can only endorse the comments of the previous correspondents.

   Planning in Epping seems never to look beyond adding further units to suit developers, with no consideration being given to the proper aspects of town and city planning. For example, I have heard no mention of the additional school places that will be needed when all the additional families move into the suburb.

   The traffic issues have been frequently aired and equally frequently dismissed. If the "planners" would take the trouble to visit Epping, especially in the evening rush hour, they would see that Epping has a major congestion problem even now. This is due to Epping being at the convergence point of several major roads crossing the railway line at the same bridge. This will only become much worse, as there appear to be no plans that will significantly improve the situation.

   The loss of open space is another major concern. The need for open space becomes more, not less, important as the population increases.

5. I can only whole heartedly agree with the four comments previously particularly the statistical information of Ms McCartney. Together - living in Forest Grove and tending to the Community Herb Garden- we fought with an open heart encouraging local residents to fight for their own voice for our future generations to ensure this proposal did not get through. We successfully won the first round and battled hard with the people of Epping against Hornsby Council and now much to our dismay the developers have gone " underground " silently and now in pre Gateway as supposedly the proposal has merit ??- on whose advise?? Certainly not local residents . Like walking through Forest Park in day light in darkness in the future, cutting down trees in Forest Park to make way for a road by the developers to drive out all the cars out from this horrendous development along this boundary from inside Forest Park- the people 's park-out onto Forest Grove a small street which cannot now and cannot possibly handle this traffic load In the future Two words I believe that say it all- over development and no traffic plans
   at all.

6. Agree with the above posters. There would be massive overshadowing of Forest Grove park green space. Plus there's been a lot of high density allowed at Epping town centre already. The roads are already suffering really badly with peak hour traffic as there's limited road access to get across the train line - it's always been a bottleneck and adding so many more homes will just compound the issue. Even though its an easy walk to station many people still end up driving places.
   Please don't allow any larger developments to be permitted.

7. Let;s be hypothetical: The UAP is in the wrong suburb, Why? Because there is NO possible way that all the traffic flowing through the Epping Town Centre will EVER be any different. Therefore by adding another 2,900 home units ( approved as at 30th August, 2016 ) this will only make the task of getting from side A to side B that much worse.

   Possible solutions:

   1. Remove the toll on the M2 thereby encouraging more motorists to go that way. This may be possible in another 40 years when the contract which the Hills M2 Motorway Company holds expires in 2056.

   2. A tunnel by-pass under the Main Northern Railway Line, Might not be feasible due to the underground rail tunnels already in place.

   3. A level crossing. Might have trouble at about 4:30 pm each afternoon when the Brisbane bound XPT is forced to a standstill to let the peak hour road traffic through.

   Conclusion:

   The Epping UAP should have been placed in another suburb other than Epping.

8. At one point just prior to the developers current proposal the chief town planner at Hornsby Shire Council suggested that since there would be no direct access on to Epping Road from this development that 10 storey blocks of home units would be reasonable. . I support that opinion and also suggest that all the former Bowling Club land be re-zoned as open space. The developer could then re -submit his ORIGINAL plans with the only change being the units fronting Epping Road being 10 storeys instead of 8. The construction of swimming pools, gymnasium, and associated works on the former Bowling Club land would ultimately be within walking distance for thousands of future residents and close to the railway station. Lets develop a vision for the future of Epping beyond the number of home units.that can be created..

9. How about extend the high density zoning to neighbouring streets (i.e. Brucedale Ave and Ormonde Ave) rather than over developing this part of Epping, which would cause overshadowing And traffic issues to Forest Grove and Park?

10. Excellent idea Sam.

    The Higher Density zoning rule changes should be extended to neighbouring areas in the vicinity of Epping Town Centre.

    Rather than having a concentration of 20~30 storey buildings, I rather see a combination of Townhouses, Terrace houses and 3~5 storey apartment blocks being built within a 800m radius of the station.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to NSW Sydney and Regional Planning Panels. They may consider your submission when they decide whether to approve this application. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment