242-244 Beecroft Road,Epping

The project makes no provision for public parking.Most stations on the Metro have had provision made to accommodate public vehicles.As there will be a major excavation for the project as originally proposed to accommodate strata lot parking there should be further excavation for say 3 levels of public parking - the state government has financed public parking - for such a major transport hub as Epping provision of public parking should be reviewed and such provision made in this new project. Whether such parking is free or for a fee should be determined. Three levels of parking should be able to accommodate 100 vehicles per level.An examination of the current parking in Epping shows that there is insufficient parking. The last state member Mr Tudenhope made many approaches to P'matta City Council to provide more parking facilities in Epping to no avail. This development affords the opportunity to correct the position and provide a need facility on current state owned Crown land

We live in 23 Ray Road and every morning coming out from Ray Road and turning into Carlingford Road takes us a considerable long time due to the number of cars. With this new development, no consideration has been given to the existing traffic chaos. I understand this project will house about 500 new apartments which means there will be an additional 50 cars at least during the morning peak hours. Building a public pedestrian from Ray Road to Beecroft Road does not serve any purpose. In order to go to the train station, we still go via Carlingford Road or Rawson Street. To ease the traffic both at Epping Bridge and Carlingford/Beecroft Road I suggest buiding an overpass for traffic from Cambridge Street into Beecroft Road. This will make a big difference to all the cars coming from the city and going towards Beecroft /Carlingford / Pennant Hills and vice versa. Please give this suggestion your due consideration. Thanks

The development needs more commercial and retail space. Epping is turning into a residential ghost town with not enough commercial activity to provide jobs and services for the thousands of people that will live here in the coming years. At minimum, the first 3-5 storeys of each tower needs to be allocated for retail/commercial activity. If people can live, work and get services in Epping this will put less pressure on the surrounding infrastructure (i.e. roads, trains and buses).

On a typical weekday morning, cars are often backed up on Ray Road all the way to Kandy Avenue - this is with the current population in Epping. Using Ray Road to go to Carlingford road is the best, if not only way for residents to get out of Epping in the mornings. As such, an addition of 400 residents will drastically increase the number of cars on Ray Road in the mornings, which will cause severe congestion.

I saw the plan and see how over crowded Epping centre is going to look like. I was told NSW government like to populate Epping train station surrounding due to ease of transport access. I SAY how about bit of service for people who are moving/living there. There are already 8 high raise apartments in completion or starting projects. I have seen many additional low raise new apartments also near Epping centre. This is already 50,000 new apartments in Epping within last few years. Government needs to WAKE UP and acknowledge of sudden in-flux of population with no additional services such as School, parking for shopping. It is ridiculous every time I go to Epping centre to do my shopping there is little chance of finding parking spot. I need to carry all my shopping or call my wife to drive and pick me up using short stay parking spot. You need to understand although buildings are close to train station but it does not mean each apartment occupier does not have at least 1 or 2 cars. How about morning/afternoon pick/normal hours motor cars traffic.

I object to this proposal because it fails on a variety of levels and will just add more apartments and traffic to an already overcrowded suburb. In particular, it should have:
• A substantial amount of retail and commercial development as well as residential development. It makes no sense to have Epping purely as a dormitory suburb – this does not maximise usage of public transport and renders retail unviable during the day due to lack of people
• A generous area of public open space appropriately landscaped and furnished. Epping only has 68% of the open space it should have for the larger population. This will just add more
• 15-20% affordable housing project through an NGO agency – No development in Epping has offered any affordable housing. Where will essential workers live in the future?
• The through road from Beecroft to Ray road as recommended by the Epping Traffic Study to help address Epping’s chronic traffic issues.
In addition, there should be:
• Clear proposals for infrastructure and public amenity improvements around Epping before any commitment is given to this Landcom project.
• A commitment to a full public review of all major developments proposed for the western side of the railway line before any more are started.
This site offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ameliorate some of Epping’s serious planning failures – and not just add to them by only adding more apartments. A much more broad approach should be taken to planning this site than simply profit. The State government mandated the changes that have occurred in Epping – now they have a chance to make a beneficial change.

The State Government is using this project to gain development approval in order to be able to then on sell this to a developer and Epping will lose a critical opportunity to gain any commercial space. Epping already has in excess of the number of dwellings originally proposed for the suburb by the State government. The current infrastructure does not meet the needs of a population this size. Please use Parramatta Councils population estimates in the 2016 Epping Planning review. There is no plan for Epping and all developments are ad hoc and not considered as part of the suburb as a whole. For example how will the more than 1200 residents of this proposal actually access Epping station at peak times? The idea of this volume of people using the pedestrian crossing at Carlingford Road, already a major bottleneck, is ludicrous. We have already have too many residential developments in our suburb and we desperately need commercial space to provide jobs. We have seen over 10000 jobs leave Epping in the recent past. This leaves next to no retail activation during the day. Please do not consider this proposal in isolation. Epping needs infrastructure, a traffic management plan, commercial space for jobs, public green spaces before we need any more units.

I strongly object to the Significant Development at 242-244 Beecroft, Epping with the following reasons.

The first and the most important reason for the objection is because of the significant negative impact that the development will bring to the nearby main roads. Even though the study has estimated that there will be only 1% increase in traffic, but having a 1% increase is too huge for the already congested intersections at Carlingford Road, Beecroft Road, Ray Road and Rawson Street, and also on the rail overpass bridge between Beecroft Road and Epping Road, particularly during the morning and evening peak hours. The study has also assumed that most of the residents living in the new development will take the public transport, rather than driving, for commuting and so there will only be minor impacts to the local road network. However, that assumption will very unlikely hold during weekends when 356 cars will be used for getting out from Epping to another suburb for shopping. It is not hard to imagine how congested and polluted the roads will be!

Secondly, the development will destroy the peaceful environment at Ray Road with the proposed vehicular access. Those existing residents on Ray Road will need to endure the increased noise and pollution from the 356 cars coming in and out of the new development.

Thirdly, the layout of the development is very poorly designed with the 3 towers being too closed to each other, resulting very low privacy for each unit, and its proximity to a petrol station and the busy Beecroft Road and Carlingford Road with the noise and poor air quality. I cannot imagine anyone who will be able to enjoy such a substandard quality living environment.

Lastly, do we really more high-rise buildings at Epping? Even though Epping is a key transport interchange, it does not mean that people need to be brought into the suburb to live and so destroy the quality of living that the existing residents are enjoying. Should we think about making a better use of the site such as building some recreation facilities (eg indoor basketball courts, concert halls) for the benefits of current Epping and nearby residents? Chatswood Concourse is a good example.

To conclude, I strongly object to the building of the residential towers on the site because of the severe adverse impact to the road traffic and noise and air pollution to the residents living in the area.

It will be much appreciated if my opinion is seriously considered.

Thank you for your attention.

I absolutely object to this development because of the following reasons:
1. Recent residential development in terms of the number of dwellings is already well in excess of what the State Government originally proposed for the Epping precinct. Developments of this nature and size near the Urban Activation Precinct should be put on hold until necessary infrastructure and community facilities have caught up with population growth. This proposal plays down this growth by using figures from 2011 rather than the more recent population estimates in the council’s Epping Planning Review of 2016. This is very misleading.
2. Epping needs commercial development in parallel with residential development. This proposal allows for approximately 1.5% of the floor space for commercial uses, which is effectively none. This continues the deliberate and short-sighted approach of recent Epping developments which have seen more than 10,000 jobs leave Epping and will leave the suburb effectively a dormitory with little retail activation during the day.
3.The site is isolated from the Town Centre by busy Carlingford Rd and one of the worst bottleneck junctions in Sydney. How are the 1200 or more residents of these towers to gain access to the Metro Station? If these 1200 people have to use pedestrian crossing on Carlingford Rd, what effect will this have on the delays in excess of one hour at peak periods that are forecast by the Epping Traffic Study for the Beecroft Rd, Carlingford Rd intersection?
4. The consent and approvals bodies for each stage of this development are not clearly defined in the EIS. As a State Significant Development, this falls under the Minister for Planning for approval. However, that means this site is not being seen properly in conjunction with other developments, or within the greater context of the challenges facing the Epping Town Centre which the City of Parramatta council are having to deal with. The Trust would like to see Council front and centre of these approval processes, since we can at least talk to Council people; it is in our experience that it is almost impossible to talk to a State Government officer who has the capacity to make changes to a project.

The community in Epping has had enough of further residential developments in this area! The community needs more commercial buildings as per above and the need for infrastructure to DRAMATICALLY improve before the suburb is able to take on further residential apartments. I have been a resident of this suburb for more than a decade and I am seeing first hand the detriment these extra apartments are having on the suburb. Please reconsider this project for the reasons I have outlined above. Infrastructure and commercial buildings are priority in this suburb NOT more residential apartments!!

I am opposed to this development.
1. Recent residential development in terms of the number of dwellings is already well in excess of what the State Government originally proposed for the Epping precinct. Developments of this nature and size near the Urban Activation Precinct should be put on hold until necessary infrastructure and community facilities have caught up with population growth. This proposal plays down this growth by using figures from 2011 rather than the more recent population estimates in the council’s Epping Planning Review of 2016. This is very misleading.
2. Epping needs commercial development in parallel with residential development. This proposal allows for approximately 1.5% of the floor space for commercial uses, which is effectively none. This continues the deliberate and short-sighted approach of recent Epping developments which have seen more than 10,000 jobs leave Epping and will leave the suburb effectively a dormitory with little retail activity during the day. All residents will be forced to travel away from Epping for work.
3. The proposal includes an insufficient number of car parking spaces. Even if residents use public transport to travel to work, they will still own a car or two per unit for shopping, weekends, sport etc. All these cars will be parked on surrounding streets during the week, further adding to congestion and leaving parking available for commuters who drive to Epping to catch the train/metro. Very shortsighted.
4. This development will preclude the use of any of this land to ameliorate traffic on the Carlingford Rd/Beecroft Rd intersection, which an east-west link traffic link through the site may have provided. This link was a key element of the council’s Epping Traffic Study.
5. The site is isolated from the Town Centre by busy Carlingford Rd and one of the worst bottleneck junctions in Sydney. How are the 1200 or more residents of these towers to gain access to the Metro Station? If these 1200 people have to use pedestrian crossing on Carlingford Rd, what effect will this have on the delays in excess of one hour at peak periods that are forecast by the Epping Traffic Study for the Beecroft Rd, Carlingford Rd intersection?
6. The EIS indicates that other massive developments on the western side of the railway line are currently under consideration. These include a 40-storey development at 59-79 Beecroft Rd (700 dwellings) and a 45-storey development at 49 and 53-61 Rawson St (1194 dwellings). Unfortunately, as usual each of these developments is being considered in isolation from the others but in fact they all affect traffic, infrastructure and community facilities cumulatively. We urgently need a precinct plan which looks at all proposed developments as a whole to work out what Epping will look like in the future.
7. The only Community open space provided with this development is effectively a small area around the through site pedestrian link between Cliff Rd and Beecroft Rd.

The development does not constitute a Scheduled Activity under Schedule 1 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act), therefore the EPA does not consider that the proposal will require an Environment Protection Licence (EPL) under the POEO Act. There is no reference to the site being contaminated land.

Accordingly, the EPA has no comments regarding the proposal and has no further interest in this proposal.

I object to the development of this project. Epping does not require more apartments and the area should be developed into something that will benefit the wider community such as retail, commercial or open public space. Building additional high-density developments on a notoriously clogged intersection will only exacerbate traffic issues. Please see my attachment for further commentary.

I oppose the concept plan contained in the above proposal for the following reasons:

• While in general I support the development of appropriate medium and high density housing around Metro stations such as Epping, there needs to be a balance of development around such transport nodes, including commercial office space.
• Epping is at risk of becoming solely a dormitory suburb as the progressive elimination of commercial office space in favour of residential developments results in declining local employment opportunities and the consequent hollowing out of the daytime economy in what might otherwise be a thriving business centre.
• If the State Government’s policy of a “30 minute city” is to be promoted there needs to be a balance of employment opportunities at transport nodes such as Epping. This would promote the more effective utilisation of transport infrastructure such as the Metro as it would encourage two way utilisation of transport and reduce the level of crowding during peak hours due to commuters all heading towards larger employment nodes in the city and nearby centres.
• The site which is the subject of this EIS was formerly an office building prior its acquisition as a construction site for the Metro, and as a result of its closure a number of businesses had to move away from Epping. Now that the Metro has been completed the site should be returned to its former use to provide office accommodation and employment opportunities in this area.
• The concept plan for this site prepared by Landcom on behalf of the Metro provides for only an insignificant amount of commercial space, which will is lock in permanently the loss of employment opportunities that the demolition of the former buildings on this site engendered.
• While the Metro and Landcom may be seeking to maximise residential development on this site so as to maximise short term returns from the site, this fails to take into account the foregone returns to the community and to the State that increased employment in this location would bring about.
• To the extent that this site might comprise a mix of residential and commercial use, the residential component should adhere to Parramatta City Council’s policy that all new residential developments should contain a minimum of 10% affordable housing. As I understand the EIS, the proposal allows only for 5% affordable housing. Parramatta Council’s laudable policy should be adhered to.
• This proposal is also inconsistent with a proposal that a portion of this site be utilised for an east west traffic link between Ray Road and Beecroft Road. This link is a key element of Parramatta Council’s Epping Traffic Study to attempt to ameliorate (or at least limit the further increase in) the road congestion in the Epping Town centre. While the benefit of this link will be modest in the context of the extraordinary level of existing congestion, as far as I am aware there are no alternative plans to assist ameliorate the congestion of this area and so it is urgent that this one opportunity be foregone.

Submitted by: Greg Blackford

Dear Sir/Madam,
I strongly object to this project. Epping is supposed to be a priority growth area, and what is urgently needed in this suburb are commercial spaces, shopping centres, public activity areas, NOT RESIDENTIAL!
There are already too many residential towers development approved in Epping and there is a huge oversupply of residential spaces at the moment, and will become even more oversupplied in the near future. There is nothing to do in this suburb, the traffic is a mess, no entertainment, just a few restaurants, and one supermarket.

Epping is not going well in terms of strategic planning.
Please, dear planners, think about the residents in Epping, think about the future of this key area in the northwest.
STOP APPROVING ANY MORE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN EPPING!!!

Regards,
A faithful resident in Epping.

Shoud have Shopping Center around Epping Station for the long term view.

There are now too many residential buildings around Epping station area, and many of them still remain vacant. There is clearly an over-supply of residential apartments in the area. Furthermore, there is a lot of apartment and hence residents now, but a lot less facilities (in terms of shopping cetres, supermarkets, even traffic has gone worse). I believe the government should focus on improving the facilities and standard of living for people in Epping, instead of approving any further residential apartments.

It is lowering the exisiting residents' living enviromment, especially considering it Will block the sunlight which is already not enough.

As you know, Epping is apartment over development. Shopping centre and public facility needed more than adding more high-rise apartment into epping. Epping road is facing heavy traffic everyday. More residents will cause more serious traffic conjestion.

I object to SSD 8784. Please see the attachment for the details of my reasons for objecting.