North Eveleigh Affordable Housing

I and my husband are long term residents of Queen Street, Newtown (we moved there in January 1985). Over the years, we have seen many changes in the area, and much development . We have welcomed change. We are not opponents of development, or of affordable (multi-level) housing.

Our concern with the North Eveleigh proposal is the traffic it will generate and the particular impact of increased traffic on Queen St.

The traffic assessment details provided with the development application are inadequate and misleading. The assessment focuses principally on traffic flows in Wilson St, Forbes St and Golden Grove Streets. It describes Forbes and Golden Grove as linking Wilson and King Streets. It virtually ignores Queen St.

Queen St will, in fact, bear the greatest traffic burden under this proposal.

The development, as proposed, provides for vehicle access at one point only - at Wilson St. just below the intersection with Queen St. Queen St is one-day in a north-westerly direction. It will become the obvious and inevitable channel for traffic from the Eveleigh development through to King St.

Secondly, Queen St provides the only intersection onto King St where it is possible for a vehicle to make a right-hand turn (towards City Rd, Broadway and the city). Forbes and Golden Grove Streets do not permit a right-hand turn onto King St; additionally, they do not have traffic lights. The development application makes no mention of these important facts.

Queen St is already used by far more cars than such a small street should have to bear. It carries virtually all the traffic connecting Wilson and King Streets at this northerly point. Other streets in the vicinity are either closed, or permit only a left-hand (southerly) turn, and do not have traffic lights.

The proposed development will exacerbate existing traffic problems for Queen St, and impact unfairly and adversely on the quality of life and of the residents. Furthermore, traffic turning right on the traffic lights at the Queen St - King St intersection already presents repeated danger to people crossing the road at that point (including children walking to North Newtown public school). This danger will increase.

If this development is to go ahead, much greater attention is needed to the impact of traffic on Queen St. At least one other access point should be required. The existing left-turn only configuration of Forbes and Golden Grove Streets onto King St, should be reconsidered.

Otherwise, Queen St will be made to bear an increased traffic load, effectively taking the whole burden of the development.

At peak times, Queen St already resembles a traffic queue. We urge you not to worsen this situation.

I am at a loss to understand how so much time and money can be spent on a study that ignores key issues like community safety and fails to take all relevant facts into account. I hope the community consultation on this project will be genuine.

The Stage 1 Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (TMAP) appears to be fundamentally flawed in three key areas:

1. Fact base of calculations
2. Failure to consider pedestrian and cyclist safety
3. Direct Conflict with the City of Sydney's 2030 Plan and Policies


1. Fact base of calculations

i) The Study is based on the travel behaviours of Darlington residents [see 5.1] - not the large number of people who live in and visit the North Newtown area daily including workers, students, shoppers and attendees to special events at the Carriageworks site (which include the regular markets and theatre performances, and special events such as Fashion Week, Finders Keepers Markets and large Corporate functions.)

The Darlington population is small and unique (2,243 compared to Newtown's 14,148 according to the TMAP) and Darlington is comprised largely of Sydney University properties, including a fitness centre, administrative buildings and student accommodations.

ii) The car count was done on October 25, at the end of the University Year, when student visits are almost non-existent. While lectures officially end the following week, many end beforehand, and students are busy studying for upcoming exams.

iii) The traffic study required by the Concept Plan consent was supposed to be a cumulative assessment of the impact of the Eveleigh Development and the University of Sydney's Abercrombie Street Development. The TMAP requirement was put into the consent because the Department found the Concept Plan study flawed.

Departmental acceptance of the TMAP for a small proportion of the site would directly contradict its previous - real world - position as there will be no cumulative assessment of how these two developments will impact on the local area.

The department should act in accordance with the planning consent and require UGDC and the first floor space proponent to prepare and make available a TMAP showing the full traffic impact of the Concept Plan. If this is not done then the Director General's Requirement regarding traffic for the concept plan will not be delivered and the full impact of the traffic issues created by both these developments will remain hidden and not taken into account.

iv) I note the consultant's "disclosure" on the title page of the study which states that "this report takes into account the particular instructions and requirements of our client."

Does this mean that Urban Growth NSW Development Corporation instructed the consultants to consider residents' traffic movements only and select a specific but deceptive time of low visitor numbers? To ignore the additional impact of nearby development already underway? How can the UGNSWDC exclude safety considerations? Is its philosophy development first, community second?

2. Failure to consider pedestrian and cyclist safety

The report focuses on car movements and ignores safety. This is both shocking and in direct conflict City of Sydney's 2030 plan and vision articulates the need to:

4.1 "Develop a network of safe linked pedestrian and cycle paths...."
4.2 "Give greater priority to cycle and pedestrian movements and amenity.....

For example, the Queen St intersection with Wilson St is "not considered critical from a traffic cap perspective" at the distorted survey time. How about from a human life perspective?

It fails to consider the lack of safety inherent in the `dog leg' right hand turn into Queen St - where the difficult turn forces drivers to focus on the traffic going both ways so that they often do not see the many cyclists who use Wilson St. I have seen many near misses of pedestrians and cyclists at that intersection - especially during major events when the influx of traffic is unfamiliar with the area, specifically and most recently, during at Mercedes Benz Fashion Week.

Queen St is already fairly unsafe - it is narrow, cars need to park on both sides which limits visibility and makes vehicle entry and exit into Bennett St difficult. Cars like to speed up Queen St to get the lights onto King St, endangering pedestrians crossing Queen St or King St, and the many children from Newtown North and Darlington Public Schools who use these crossings. Cars travelling along King St, frustrated by the time it takes, also often run this red light. I have witnessed this many times.


3. Direct Conflict with the City of Sydney's 2030 Plan and Policies

In addition to the failure to consider the safety and amenity of pedestrian and cyclists, the development misses a great opportunity to contribute to making Sydney a "Creative City", as
"A cultural and creative city is one of the ten strategic directions of Sustainable Sydney 2030."

Affordable living and work spaces for artists in the Carriageworks precinct should be a priority for development in this area. Local and other artists are in dire need of affordable spaces to work, study and meet, and the cultural life of the city would be promoted if the area was enhanced with artists' studios, writers' rooms, meeting rooms for writers' groups and small performance spaces for example, with a particular focus on indigenous artists and young people.

Conclusion

I hope that the Coalition State Government and the City of Sydney values facts and community safety and looks carefully at all projects rushed through and rubber stamped by the former Labor Government.

Hello,

Congrats on your website, I find it very informative and related to topic. I have just came across the website and found out it has a potential to be visited by many visitors across the internet, but it looks like it lacks the backlinks.

I personally use this services for my own portfolio of websites, which helps them receive lot of traffic and better positions in search eninges. You can also think about to take a look at that seo services if you want to obtain more exposure to your site.

[url=http://fiverr.com/worldofseo/create-25-penguin-safe-pr5-high-authority-backlinks-to-your-website-blog-or-youtube-video]PR 5 Backlinks[/url]

By the way, Nice website layout. Have a great day.

I object to the increased footprint and height of the proposal and also the lack of parking for cars, with only 39 car spaces for 88 units!!!. This will put unacceptable pressure on the surrounding streets where I live and the cars parked by these residents and their visitors will not leave at night like the student drivers who park during the day. The whole area should have been turned over to use by the University of Sydney, as teaching spaces. This would not cause pressure on residential streets nearby at night, thus allowing the present residents to park when they return from work. It is also unacceptable to increase the building footprint as there is so little open space at the moment in Newtown.

As residents of Queen Street, our concern is with the increase in traffic in our street which will result from this development. Queen Street is a narrow street, with cars parked on both sides, making it entirely unsuitable for the anticipated increase in traffic. It is the only street in the vicinity with left and right turn access to King Street with traffic lights. At peak times, traffic backs up on Queen St because it cannot enter the congested King St traffic stream. On Fridays, garbage trucks carrying out collection soon back up traffic as they go about their business. Increased traffic will exacerbate existing noise and safety issues and reduce amenity for residents.

Our submission is that traffic should use Codrington/Butlin Ave as it is much wider and has two lane access to King St, City Rd and the University. A median strip is required on Wilson St outside the Eveleigh Housing Project exit, to block right turn access to Queen St.

I am most concerned by:
- the safety issues associated with the use of Queen Street by vehicles entering and exiting the development.
- more traffic on Queen Street
- proposed parking arrangements that allow for a ratio of less than 1 car spot per two households.

Queen Street is narrow and congested - particularly during peak periods and when events at Carriage works are held. It sometimes takes several minutes to navigate a path on Queen Street in the section between Bennett Street and Wilson Street. It works, but I would not think it could cope with more traffic without removing parking spots on the street and that would be unacceptable considering the existing difficulty parking in the area.

Further, from a safety perspective I have to date seen 2 very near vehicle accidents and one bike accident resulting from vehicles entering Queen Street from the existing entry into Carriage works. The issue is that cars move at pace across the road when a gap appears to get over to Queen Street, but do not anticipate that they may not be able to enter the street - with a car travelling in the opposite direction down Queen ready to turn onto Wilson. The car trying to enter Queen Street screeches to a halt and blocks traffic travelling along Wilson Street (usually in the north direction, but I have seen them block both directions on occasion). The issue is made worse if the a car exiting Queen Street is trying to turn right into Wilson Street as they have to wait for gap in the traffic (which sometimes is filled by one of the cars being held up in the northbound lane of Wilson - as people get increasingly impatient). It is messy, dangerous and I surprised more accidents have not happened - or maybe they have and I have just not heard about them.

Parking during an event period is especially difficult, including the markets on a Saturday morning and also anytime university is in session. If I arrive home from work past 6.30pm any night of the week, I usually have to park a block or two away and walk in. I understand that parking is being provided at the development at a ratio of less than 1 to 2 households? How is this sensible/practical? Are parking spaces used in events being lost to this development also? I really hope not. CAn more be provided? Parking will continue to get worse. Any parking should be for local residents only and timed.

Suggestion to address issues raised:
- Restrict the dog-leg entry by vehicles exiting the development to travel up Queen Street. Vehicles wanting to travel up Queen Street specifically can safely use the round about at Burren/Wilson Street intersection or at Golden Grove Street/Wilson Street - less than 100 metres away. Access to King Street by development users would hopefully be diverted to Golden Grove or Codrington Street, which are much wider safer roads, with ample capacity to accept increased traffic.
- Provide more parking on the development. Surely, this could be done at least in a temporary basis until other stages of the development are approved? This would really make a difference. Every park, every single one, makes a difference. Stage construction to have parking places installed early.
- Parking of construction vehicles (during construction) should NOT be allowed in local streets. They should either be parked on site or workers should be encouraged to come to work by train. Options being used on other construction sites in sensitive site across Sydney include using a car sharing scheme or establishing a compound outside the project area which shuttles staff in at the beginning and end of each day.
- Officers (I assume Council, but could be private) should monitor parking regularly to fine those workers using restricted parking as all day spots. This is particularly important in the first 6 months of construction

For your consideration.

please see attached pdf file.

I am a local Newtown resident, and object to the current development plans for SSD5708, North Eveleigh Affordable Housing Project as per my attached submission.