Mod 1 - Design Changes

I applaud the previous decision of the authority to put the amenity of all Meadowbanks residents first, however I am concerned that some elements of latest submission represents an attempt to circumvent this.

While I understand the need to make minor changes to the development once the detailed planning takes place, I see no strong justification for the request in this application to change the mix of dwellings to include more one bedroom apartments. The applicant sites this response to market demand and while I understand the developer will try and maximise his revenue, this should not be put ahead of the amenity and well being of meadowbank residents.

While adding additional apartments may only have a minor impact on total residents, it is quite clear from their failure to address it in detail that the developer has tried to hide the need for additional parking associated with the new apartments as much as they possibly can. Clearly adding 64 parking spots and additional level of parking flies in the face of the previous decision of the authority. If you consider that there are an additional 8 stages in the development that will need to "respond to market demand", the potential for hundreds of additional parking spaces and the negative flow on impact to already strained traffic flow is clear.

The authority should reinforce that the reason Meadowbank is considered to be a hub for development is its proximity to public transport. Allowing for such an increase in parking is going to undermine this and negatively impact the amenity of all Meadowbanks residents, simply to allow for greater profits for the developers.

I am also concerned that this will be just one of many attempts to push back the previous decisions of the authority that we will see as the development progresses through its stages. I believe the previous decisions on floors, density and public areas were taken with the best interests of the new residents who will join the meadowbank community AND the existing residents, and these key standards need to be maintained.

The average resident does not have the time or knowledge to review and make submissions on every request that may come in, so I hope that the authority recognizes this and ensures the integrity of their previous decisions for the life of the development.

The original DA was based on a development site of 9.3ha and what has been approved by PAC is based on a site of 6.5ha. In the original DA, Holdmark asked for 2657 units to be built, PAC approved up to 2000 units (which represents 75% of the units in the original DA). Considering the site size has been reduced by more than 30%, what's approved is already rather generous.

The modification application, if approved, will result in:

1. More traffic on the local roads due to significantly increased number of residents.
2. Adverse visual impact due to higher buildings.
3. Poorer air quality for open space due to exhaust air emitted from basement parking underneath it.

Therefore, I strongly object to the modification applications for both Stage 1 and Stage 1-5.

Despite the self congratulatory and highly exaggerative information on its website, the developer Holdmark has an appalling track record of offering substandard buildings (think Auburn Central) due to its greed and corrupt practice. The development which it has done in Meadowbank (called "Bay One") is a true shameful eyesore which has frankly given Meadowbank an unflattering "slum look". I believe the former industrial buildings on the site actually looked better.

If they want to make more money, take advantage of a booming property market now, rather than squandering a golden opportunity by putting in more modification applications.

I hope Holdmark will learn something from Billbergia which made its first bucket of gold in Meadowbank by building better quality development and then moved on to something better and much bigger without wasting their time (and everybody else's). To be honest Mr Nassif, I would rather walking in the park right now than sitting in front of a boring computer writing this submission.

I own 2/7a Bank St, Meadowbank.

Why I am against this application is because:



1. Meadowbank is overdeveloped

2. A building height of 10-12 storeys is very out of character with the area.

3. The infasrtucture around Meadowbank is not handling the current population as it is. The roads were made before developments. They are very skinny and not designed for large traffic numbers. Currently with the pedestrian crossing at Meadowbank train station, in peak hour traffic there are lengthy delays. The school doesnt really have the space to grow too much more. The parking is already a nightmare on the streets.

Thanks

As a resident of Meadowbank for only 6 years it has been my observation and the observation of my neighbours that Meadowbank is becoming harder and harder to get in and out of. Between the growing number of people dodging Victoria Rd, recent developments and poor policing of the local roads ie cars consistently cuing through roundabouts & intersections it can take 10 minutes to travel 1 km.. With no way of improving this situation I really feel that Meadowbank is already over developed,

Concerned about the following:

1. The breakdown in approval process. What was originally approved is now being challenged in a way that would significantly benefit the developers through increased units at no real benefit to the community.
2. Increase of pedestrian and vehicle traffic without adequate infrastructure investments and upgrades.
3. Pressure on vehicle parking around the Shepards Bay Vicinity due to the lack of adequate parking spots in the proposed development.

My first objection is that I have to submit this as the PAC has already spent a lot of time and taxpayers' money to access the original application and given their decision and now we go through it all again. PAC's decision should be final.
My other objections are the increase in the number of units which will increase the density of people.
Total lack of infrastructure (road & rail) either available now or planned to cope with this increase in population (there are currently some 800 unit already under construction within this area).
Insufficient car parking spaces( cars now line the streets in this area)
Lack of open space.
Over crowding which may result in slums of the future due to lack of community/civic pride.

As a local resident I would like to strongly object to the Meadowbank Foreshore Development [MFD] modifications lodged by the developer Holdmark.
I find this tedious and time consuming to have to object to this development yet again. The PAC has already ruled on this development in a reduced form and it's unbelievable that Holdmark can lodge modifications greater than the original development. The current approval is way beyond Ryde local council guidelines.
I have numerous concerns; firstly, our current infrastructure does not cope with the current population. Roads are totally choked trying to get out on to Victoria Road, all people going to work and school children are subjected to lengthy delays to get out of the Meadowbank area. . Alternatives such as bus, train or ferry are equally as difficult and stressful being overcrowded at peak times. Often the ferry is full on a weekend and you have to use an alternative. I think that the traffic survey used by Holdmark is erroneous and further traffic surveys should be conducted.
The local schools are full and I notice demountables being installed at Meadowbank School in the play area. Soon children will have no school playground. Has any modelling been done with the Department of Education?
The local shops do not have adequate parking for current population and I see no provision for additional shops or parking.
The electricity grid does not cope with current population
The list goes on and on.
Importantly, this is not going to be a healthy environment for anyone and will later impact on our health system. Children have little green space and I find the green space area suspiciously large and yet there is not one large playing area for children? Where do kids kick a ball etc? Where will they play?
Importantly, this Development will totally change the amenity of the area. Not surprisingly there has been no change in the community sentiment since this was ruled on by the PAC. Over 1000 concerned local residents felt strongly against this overdevelopment and signed a petition. They have not changed their mind and their lack of response is due to the feeling it has been ruled upon and dealt with. People are absolutely sick of having to waste further time fighting this again and wasting public resources to re-visit something that has been ruled upon.
This developer's persistence is extremely tiresome and the original approval is still beyond the local infrastructure. Concerned local resident: J Robinson

I object to the modification request application with regards to the increase in the number of storeys being sought. The number must confrom to what has been approved. In fact, this residential development should be restricted to the maximum 8 storeys as spelled out by the Ryde Council on residential and mix use development, just like the massive Shepherds Bay village development and the two new residential developments adjacent to Underdale Lane in Meadowbank. I simply cannot fathom why this over development that also destroys the skyline in the Meadowbank foreshore is permitted. I strongly advocate that the Shepherds Bay village developemnt should be used as a template for any development in the Meadowbank Foreshore Development.

I am writing to object to this development modification.

The Meadowbank Foreshore Development originally raised many concerns of over-development of the area, and after public meetings and referral to the Planning Assessment Commission was reduced in scope.

This new request to increase it raises concerns of overcrowding and overwhelming local infrastructure. Please defer this application back to PAC for proper community consultation.

Kind Regards

I oppose to the new Submissions

I am concerned that this has alreday been considered by the PAC and now we have to commence our objections again.
Why can't the PAC approval be final?
The roads and streets in this area clogged now at peak times and the trains are no different. What infrastructure is planned for this influx of units?
Educational facilities must be an issue and likewise open space.
The reduced form must be maintained!!

I am writing to oppose TO the proposed increased height and density of the above development proposals as well as the fact that Nancarrow Avenue is going to be a through road joining onto Bowden Avenue thus putting more pressure on the already heavy use of this road in the peak hours. Currently, we are already experiencing cars dragging down Bowden Street, police were called on numerous occasions, so making it a connecting street to another development will only make the matter worse.

This seems to be a waste of everybody's time. There has already been approval for what is an excessive number of units (about 2000) in an area where the infra structure is already not coping properly. The authorities who considered the original application and reduced the scope have wasted their time. Objectors also have wasted their time if a developer can continue to seek modification until they find someone who they can influence to decide in their favour.

The modification application will result in more traffic and more congested parks and public transport, not to mention the adverse visual impact.

To contruct car parking under public open space will adverse affect the air quality of such open space and safety to the public particularly children due to proximity to car parking is also a big concern.

Please refer any decisions regarding this resubmitted development back to the Planning and Assessment Commission. To do so will provide the residents of Ryde with the consultation they deserve.

I strongly object to the increase of units for this development as Meadowbank is already getting over crowded and there seems to be no infrastucture planned in the forseable future.
The people already living in the main complex here are finding it very hard to leave the area between 3pm and 6pm and get out of Bay Drive and get thru the Round About or over the railway bridge.
It would also be helpful if Underdale lane was made a one way only so we would not have the Rat Runners cutting thru Bowden Street to get tho the round about and cut Bay Drive of completely.

The proposed development is excessive and motivated purely by commercial greed rather any desire to improve or add value to the area. It will put a severe strain on the facilities, resources and infrastructure available in the area, including water, power and waste (which are already under starin given that the infrastructure was based on business rather than residential usage). Traffic and public transport problems are also inevitable when looking at developments of this size, not to mention the shortage of school places, medical and dental services etc.

In response to the proposed modifications outlined in MP09_0219 Stage 1, I strongly oppose the additional modifications which seeks to increase the density of apartments and adding an above ground level of parking to this development.

The additional apartments and car spaces exceed the original approved development proposals without concern for the neighbouring traffic and infrastructure, which will burden the already densely populated Belmore street parking. The current traffic situation is already hemorrhaging with the connecting arterial roads from Church Street onto Constitution Road every day.

I believe as the adjoining primary school will be affected with this additional development as there has been no indication of additional road marked speed or parking signs to accommodate the safety of Children and pedestrians within the area with this additional traffic.

The proposed development has too many storeys to fit with the area and the proposed number of units is excessive for the site and will create traffic congestion on the roads and in using transport - rail, bus, ferry . The height of the buildings should not exceed 6 storeys and adequate open space should be included. The planned development should also not be marketed only to the ethnicity thought to pay the highest prices, as has happened with other developments.

Reasons For Objecting To MP 09_0129 MOD1 appended below:
1. Additional dwellings sought only worsens over development and increases density,both of which are undesirable.
2. Contributes to further unnecessary environmental degradation, particularly noise and air.
3. Further worsen traffic congestion.
4. Profitability gain for developer at the expense and the interest of the community.
5. The profit motive behind the application does not constitute good grounds for changes to approved Stage 1 development.