Ivanhoe Estate Redevelopment - Concept

We are opposed to development due to:
Removal of significant amount of endangered ecological community.
Excessive size and scale of the development.
Adverse impacts on Shrimptons creek bush corridor.
Lack of any serious assessment of impacts on Shrimptons Creek bush
corridor (including its ecology). Eg shading effects. Wind shadow
effect.
Lack of sympathetic building planning - the hight remaining consistent
all the way to Shrimptons Creek.
Impacts on wind penetration further west of the development preventing
cooling conditions during hot summer meteorology.
others.
Reduced local and regional dispersion of emissions generated by
traffic - especially and along the Epping Rd corridor.

I am putting in a request to extend the exhibition period for an
additional two weeks ending 23/05/2018, due to school holidays running
from 14th to 29th April (therefore allow reasonable time for all to
review). Thanks very much.

Regarding the Ivanhoe project, i strongly object to it!!!! this will
affect to the private owners benefit and future development value! how
can the government increase the benefit of people who take money from
government without any contribution to the society soooo much benefit
and disregard tax payers benefit! this is unacceptable and
unreasonable!!! please think of another way to development by changing
to another side and stop the disturburce to our peaceful life!!

Proposed north-east-facing buildings neighbouring Peach Tree Road need to
be set back a minimum of 12 metres, for esoteric, ecological and
commercial ethics, from the boundary .

1. The proposed setback of 6 and 10 metres are non-complaint and need to
be setback at least 12 metres from the boundary with all Peach Tree Rd
properties.

2. The proposed buildings will considerably overshadow the Peach Tree
Rd buildings in the afternoons.

3. The orientation of the proposed buildings will result in loss of
privacy to Peach Tree Rd residents.

The proposed master plan of boundary non compliant. Need a set back of at
least a minimum of 12 meters. Impacting on privacy and development
potential of peach tree road properties

The Ivanhoe estate developers will be able to build towers just 6 meters
from the current back fence to our block.

THIS WILL SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE VALUE AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE BLOCKS ALONG PEACHTREE ROAD.

I object to this plan !

I object to build the towers behind the Peach Tree road, which will
highly impact the residents living nearby.

It has come to my attention that a major development is planned for right
on the back boundary of my property. I would like to object to the
distance these very high and large complexes are to my boundary fence.
A minimum set back should be 12 metres not the stated distance of 6m
and 10m. This would allow more room for tree plantings to help
maintain some level of privacy for my residence. My unit would also be
over shadowed in the afternoon by these extremely high towers. Please
retain maximum set back for breathing space, privacy and sunlight.

thankyou

Ruth Ireland

THIS WILL SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE VALUE AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE BLOCKS ALONG PEACHTREE ROAD.

The Ivanhoe Estate will severely impact on the privacy of residents
within the unit blocks along Peach Tree Road. The proposed setbacks of
6 to 10 metres are non-compliant and need to be a minimum on 12
metres. The proposed buildings will significantly overshadow the Peach
Tree Rd buildings in the afternoons. And the residents along Peach
Tree Rd will lose their privacy due to the proposed orientation of the
buildings.
This will overall reduce the value of land along Peach Tree Rd.

i object

My concern is that the proposed Ivanhoe building is only setback 6 to 10
meters from the 1 Peach Tree Road property line but should be at least
12 meters from the property line. The Ivanhoe buildings should be set
back further to allow for future development of Peach Tree Road. The
proposal has the orientation of the buildings along the eastern
boundary which will result in a loss of privacy, resulting in further
restrictions to future Peach tree Road development.

Proposed building of the Ivanhoe property along the property boundary
and the orientation of the buildings should be reconsidered to protect
the amenity of the residents on Peach Tree Road.

Thank you in advance.

I object to this proposal. It is not in my best interested for this
project to be built just 6 meters from the current back fence of our
block.
Go build somewhere else

I believe the transitions between the public areas and lots 3, 5 and 7
Peach tree road are too close. There should be more green areas as a
transition. The pool is also too close to the boundary. I also have
concerns of privacy of the highschool overlooking the residential
area. Please consider that GFAs and height controls of the adjoining
lots are the lowest in the area

No clear information on heght controls and if the project complies to
the height restrictions in the area.

Regards,

Too close to my unit

too high

Dear Planning and Environment NSW,

I would like to object the proximity of sites B 1.1, B 1.2, B2 to lots
1, 3, 5 and 7 Peach Tree Road; only 6 metres in some sections to a
forty five metre building.

There should be more open space in between the sites.

Kind regards,

Duncan Tomlinson

1. As Ivanhoe is a hugely significant development affecting the whole
area, I'm not sure if the notification letters were distributed to all
residents and land owners in the surrounding area, not only Herring
Road Precinct, but the whole Macquarie park Priority Precinct as well.
2. Both the intersection of Herring Road of Epping Road and the
Herring Road are largely congested. Also the potential signalising of
the intersections would be even worse by causing more waiting time. We
don't think any measures could alleviate the increasingly traffic
congestion along Herring Road, but Ivanhoe is adding more traffic
flow.
In addition, it should not only consider the Ivanhoe itself,
consenting authorities should take into all Herring Road's (all even
whole Macquarie Park's) future development into consideration and
analysis as a whole, because we are the end user of this area and we
can't object on project by project.
The fact is that we already realized that sites were sold and being
sold by various agents which could potentially provide 1000+ units,
how come Land and Housing Corporation as a Government simply thinks on
behalf of himself, instead of investigating all surrounding area's
existing and potential traffic congestion?
Ivanhoe's developers and consenting authorities should take into
account of all future Herring Road's development sites into analysis,
it seems that the Herring Road are the only access in and out of their
projects which will be killing us residents.
3.We see the advantage of the whole area as having so many nice big
and tall endangered trees, but very unfortunately, it seems they will
remove almost all of them. This is a rural tranquil area, but the
developer is turning it into an urban centre. We think it will break
up the endangered forest community.
4.Seems the street parking will be eliminated during construction
period, where I usually park there.
5.Seems buildings are very close to neighboring buildings, can they
remove endangered trees and break setback and privacy rules
simultaneously?

5. It seems all buildings are very close to neighbouring buildings, are
they non-compliant with setback rules? The most important questions
are how they can both remove endangered trees and build even closer to
neighbors simultaneously?

6. The consultation period is rather tight, because it's holiday. I
can't even have enough time to discuss thoroughly with my friends who
are planning and development background. I think the process is a mess
and bad one.

7. What social infrastructure would be provided by Ivanhoe to the
whole area, especially along Herring Road? It doesn't make sense just
provide infrastructure and facilities into their own site, they should
benefit the whole Herring Road area / Macquarie Park Priority Precinct
and the whole area.