King Street Multi-level Warehouse, Mascot

To whom it may concern

Please Travelodge Sydney Airports objections or requests for further details to the proposal.

1. General bulk of proposed warehouse with only 9 meter setback from Southern boundary on King street ( which is not inline with current setbacks on King St ) and only 10 meters from Eastern boundary. This seems bulk and reduced setback is excessive and we object to this variation.

2. Concern with increased movement and noise on King street especially by loud 19m semi trailer trucks.

3. O’riordan and King St intersection: Concern on traffic bank up exiting King st especially with slow moving 19m semi trailer trucks. Will require and block right lane( when on King street) if turning left onto O’riordan and cause delays for other vehicles turning right or left onto O’riordan. How is this going to be addressed by RMS at the lights to avoid delays for other vehicles? This will be an issue both during construction and more so during operation post completion.

3a. Dust and acoustic concerns during construction affecting hotel which is within 20 meters from construction site. What can Logos do or offer to mitigate same over the proposed 18 month build.

3b. As such during construction, periodical façade cleaning, at builders expense, would be requested and required.

4a Travelodge has serious concerns with proposed 24 hour 7 day operational hours of site. The truck ingress and egress on King street and also just as concerning are trucks goings up and down the proposed 5 story ramps and use of truck air brakes will be a significant issue to hotel especially at night. The install of additional specific acoustic materials to absorb noise is necessary and pressed along with ongoing monitors during operations especially as Logos is unaware of tenants and there potential use of warehousing. What is solution so trucks do NOT use their air brakes whilst on King St?

4b. Page 76 Picture 18. Can it please be clarified if the red line circling the site and the blurry truck symbol? Indicate that there is to be heavy vehicle traffic moving around the site and along the eastern boundary of site. Heavy vehicle traffic moving around the site in this fashion would create unnecessary noise for the Travelodge Hotel. We would have no objection to light vehicles only to use this eastern boundary route.

4c. Page 78 refers to vehicle movement on King Street. This would be based on vehicles and not trucks. The increase as such in particular on the PM is concerning. Is there an estimate on the overnight impact?

4d. Page 79 6.1.4.3 I don’t understand that with an additional 145 heavy vehicle movements per day ( excluding an overnight shift associated with a 24 hour operation ) how King street in it's current format would remain in good condition which would negatively impact the location impression the hotel enjoys.

5. What will become of the land locked factory unit at located at 295 King street?

6. Currently their is a walk way from north west corner of 289 King St car park onto 297 King street footpath/ walkway. We would like this to remain and incorporated post construction.

7. Logos to consider vehicle controlled access from Wilson parking North west corner to the 2 way road on eastern boundary of 297 King st heading to the on grade Logos car park and Bourke st.

8. There should never be banking up of trucks or vehicles on King street awaiting ingress or egress from Logos facility and blocking traffic access into 289 King street Mascot driveways. What measures can be put in place and offered?

9a. Based on the shadow drawings provided, the extreme bulk of the proposed warehouse will create significant overshadowing of hotel rooms on the western boundary of hotel in afternoons. What mitigation measures can be adopted pressing point 9c below.

9b. What additional measures can be adopted to make this façade outlook more appealing for Eastern boundary of logos property?

9c. The proposed multi-storey warehouse is well in excess of height permissible and FSR for said site which is excessive and we object to this increased size variation.

11a. Could some clarity be provided around the construction hours referred to on page 18 and on page 43 as they are different. We would object to the 7:00am to 7:00pm earthworks and external construction, 7 days, referred to on page 18 of the EIS. We seek normal building hours Monday to Saturday and no work on Sundays with loud and disruptive works within these normal hours due to the sensitivity of hotel.

11b. Noise monitoring to be in place both on King street and at Hotel to monitor traffic impact and construction impact during construction.

12. On page 48 3.2.3.5 - Utility Services could it please be clarified if the installation of the substations will result in any impact for the Travelodge Hotel operations. Who is responsible for loss of trade as a result of down time?

13. On Page 49 it refers to no identified tenant. Is this still the case? If not, then it is even more important to future proof this site again with noise impact for surrounding business's.

14. Page 85 Cumulative impacts in practical terms - how is this managed? Who gets precedence? How is this monitored, how & when do they communicate this and what are the consequences as these are more than likely going to be separate building companies &/or project management team ( if the same one ).

15. For the record, no consultation has occurred between Logos and hotel for design and input by hotel owner.

Kind Regards
Justin Style
Travelodge Hotel Sydney Airport

Please see attached letter of support.

Bendamere presents as another unfortunate profit over people development . It is wrong on the following basis :
1. There is no conducive strategic land use planning to support the project.
2. It conflicts with cumulative impact assessment for the lower New England REZ
3.

20/08/2023
Objection To:
SSD-49734709 297 King Street Mascot NSW 2020
(Lot 4 DP 234489 and Lot 103 DP 1282564)
Exhibition of State Significant Development Application
King Street Multi-Level Warehouse, Mascot

To Whom This May Concern,
I wish to object to the proposed King Street Multi- Level warehouse development regarding a number of planning concerns.

In regards to the Environmental Impacts Statement (EIS), according to the NSW Government the adjoining property owners must be informed by consultation regarding this development.

I am the immediate adjacent property owner to this proposed development and there was no direct approach by Logos regarding their planning intentions.

With recent experience regarding Bayside Council, they encourage adjacent property owners to be amalgamated with larger proposed developments to improve streetscape and eliminate unnecessary setbacks and isolation of properties.

This proposed development will clearly cause the adjacent property located at 295 King Street Mascot to become completely isolated. This will consequently cause, inappropriate lot consolidation patterns that would isolate and unreasonably restrict redevelopment on a single lot.

Methods of consultation, should also involve acquisition of adjoining properties based on land valuations provided by accredited land valuers.

The position of the proposed multi-level warehouse is at the western end of King Street which is a dead-end street.

My understanding of this warehouse involving logistics is the use of heavy-vehicles which are not electric or hybrid.

The Green Travel Plan (GTP) that is mentioned by the proposed developer does not appear to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or improve local traffic flow, if there is constant use of heavy vehicles 24 hours 7 days per week. Noting also that there is a large car park (Park on King) to the south of this development which will encourage further use of private vehicles.

There is mentioning of widening the cul-de-sac at King Street, however I believe this will not improve traffic flow.
Clearly it would be ideal if this was a throughfare main road.

The Colston Budd Rogers & Kafes Pty Ltd Transport and Accessibility Impact Assessment for the proposed multi-level warehouse states that, “construction methodology, process and staging for the proposed warehouse development has not yet been precisely defined”.

The proposed warehouse footprint facing south across King Street is forward to the building line of the Travelodge Hotel which is to the east of this proposed development. There will be overshadowing impact to the Travelodge Hotel which is essentially residential short-term accommodation. This is clearly noted in the proposed overshadowing diagrams provided by Lacoste & Stevenson Architects.

The height of the proposed development is in breach of the BLEP 2021 and noting the building line is further south to that of the Travelodge hotel which will further magnify the overshadowing impacts. Planning should involve increasing upper-level setbacks and possibly positioning the proposed development in line with the Travelodge hotel.

This is not an appropriate location for a massive multi-level warehouse located at the end of a dead-end street, amongst hotels and residents.
This will cause unnecessary traffic flow issues.
The constant use of heavy vehicles will only cause further traffic congestion and noise.

It will not improve the local community and does not complement the existing commercial buildings. Clearly the proposed development is not suited to this site and will only be beneficial if the western end of King Street was a main road thoroughfare.

Alternative planning proposals should involve complementing existing commercial businesses and one such proposal could be another hotel or short-term accommodation facilities.

Kind Regards,
Adjacent Neighbour 295 King St Mascot

Refer to uploaded Attachment

23/07/2024
Objection to: SSD-49734709
(Lot 4 DP 234489 and Lot 103 DP 1282564)
Exhibition of Amended State Significant Development Application
297 King Street Multi-Level Warehouse, Mascot NSW 2020

To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed amended development at 297 King Street, Mascot, based on several planning concerns.
The amended proposal still involves the construction and operation of a five-storey industrial warehouse and distribution centre with minor changes, amongst hotels and short-term residential accommodation.
The requirements of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) necessitate consultation with adjoining landowners for any proposed State-Significant Development.
Unfortunately, Logos did not engage with adjoining landowners regarding their planning intentions.
In particular, the property located at 295 King Street Mascot and the tenant A2B Car Rentals, next door to the proposed development receives absolutely no reference in all of the Logos consulting reports.
There is no reference or assessment made to the impact of such a development to the immediate adjacent property and therefore restricting its redevelopment and causing unsightly lot isolation.
If approved, this proposal will isolate the adjoining 295 King Street Mascot property, rendering it completely landlocked and enforcing inappropriate lot consolidation patterns with unsatisfactory streetscape.
In relation to the survey diagrams provided by LandPartners, note the position of 295 King Street, questions should be raised as to the lack of interest in property amalgamation on behalf of the applicant for consolidation.
The setback between the proposed development with a height of 44 metres and my property is only 2 metres. The proposed development is noted as having a 5.5 metre ramp for vehicle access at this point. The Bayside Development Control Plan 2022, notes greater setbacks will be required for bulky, hazardous and noise or odour generating activities. This area must also maintain landscaping and accommodate appropriate canopy trees to improve streetscape and in similar cases the setback has been increased to 3 metres.
The proposed development will also have adverse impacts on already approved developments located at 5-11 Ewan Street Mascot (also known as 342 King Street), the Travelodge Hotel at 289 King Street and the Ibis Hotel located at 205 O’Riordan Street Mascot.
The property located at 215-235 O’Riordan Street (Gateway site) has an approved FSR of 5.2:1 approximately 40,000 sqm of floor space. This site will facilitate a future development application for an eleven-storey office building with ground floor medical and ancillary consulting services and a twelve storey Hotel.
The proposed multi-level industrial warehouse development is not appropriate for the immediate surrounding Hotels, Service Apartments, Businesses and all future approved developments.
The proposed development has provided a Transport and Accessibility Impact Assessment which mentions three separate access driveways from King Street into the proposed development and a turning circle to facilitate vehicles to turn around and recirculate within the dead-end street. This also includes 20 metre articulated vehicles and heavy rigid vehicles.
The major concern is 20 metre articulated vehicles entering King Street on O’Riordan Street (northbound). This will have a serious impact on light vehicle traffic flow in an already heavily congested traffic area. There is no dedicated left turn lane and questions remain if these vehicles can make this turn with the existing footpaths and pedestrian crossings.
Swept path diagrams have been prepared for 20 metre articulated vehicles turning left into King Street from O’Riordan Street and this clearly demonstrates the articulated vehicles cannot make this turn with the current road infrastructure.
Southbound traffic flow on O’Riordan Street heading towards Mascot Domestic and International Airport is also heavily congested with light vehicular traffic flow. Even with a dedicated right lane turn into King Street on O’Riordan Street (southbound), the 20 metre articulated vehicles will no doubt slow traffic flow. This will likely cause delays for airport users and further contribute to unforeseen local traffic problems around the key thoroughfare of O’Riordan Street.
The Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure must consider the rate of traffic flow if this multi-level industrial warehouse is approved. The Department should also question the Colston Budd Rogers & Kafes Pty Ltd Transport and Accessibility Impact Assessment for the proposed multi-level industrial warehouse which states that, “construction methodology, process and staging for the proposed warehouse development has not yet been precisely defined”.
No matter what the applicant changes to meet the requirements of parking, flooding, stormwater infrastructure, landscaping, built form, amenity, fire safety requirements, it will have difficulty widening King Street at the intersection of O’Riordan Street. This will be a requirement to allow entry and exit of 20 metre articulated vehicles into King Street, this serious issue has not been addressed.
The proposed multi-level industrial warehouse development is to be situated on the western end of King Street, which is a dead-end Street. The widening of the road at the western end of King Street may not necessarily improve the traffic flow as there are a number of surrounding businesses which rely on a high volume of taxi, car-rental vehicles, uber, shuttle bus and passenger vans which service both Domestic and International airport which is only a few kilometres away. The loss of ten on- street parking spaces due to the provision of the required King Street turning head will impact local businesses, which rely on drop off and pick up services.
Both the Ibis and Travelodge Hotels have driveways onto King Street. This will adversely impact traffic flow to both Hotels. The proposed warehouse development does not complement the surrounding locale.
The amended proposal is in breach of the height limit permissible under the 2021 Bayside Council Local Environmental Plan (LEP). Efforts to reduce the impact of overshadowing on the Travelodge hotel must also be further considered.
The proposed building orientation and site position means overshadowing is not minimised. The amended proposal does not address the issue of the building line, as the proposed warehouse is not in line with the Travelodge hotel. This is clearly noted in the proposed overshadowing diagrams provided by Lacoste & Stevenson Architects.
The proposed multi-level industrial warehouse and distribution centre will operate 24 hours per day 7 days a week. There will be ongoing operational noise generated from loading activities involving forklifts, light and heavy vehicle movements, trucks idling onsite and offsite, loud airbrake noise, reversing alarms, and movement of containers during stacking. This will create adverse amenity impacts on nearby residents. Please note between the hours of 11pm and 6am there is an airport curfew in place to minimise the impact of noise to nearby residents.
The applicant also proposes the construction and operation of a further 5 storey mixed use development, with a total of 31,085 square metres of total gross floor area, comprising of nine industrial warehouse tenancies and ancillary offices to be located at 350 King St Mascot which is directly opposite to this proposed development. This will further adversely impact traffic flow issues in the western end of king street.
In light of these key planning concerns, I urge the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure to reconsider the approval of this development.
I firmly believe that the NSW Department of Planning, should consider alternative planning proposals that complement the local area and its surrounding businesses.

Kind Regards,
Denco Pty Ltd
295 King Street Mascot

Please see comments in attached letter

Please see attached letter of response.

Please refer to Attachment