Pymble Residential Development (Beechworth Rd)

Re: MP08_0207 & MP10_0219

Dear Sir/Madam

The proposed residential development at 1, 1A & 5 Avon Road and 4 & 8 Beechworth Road, Pymble, is a classic case of over-development and has no public benefit. For example, the proposed development would cause major traffic issues in Pymble's Beechworth Road, Avon Road and Livingstone Road.

There is already significant traffic congestion in those three roads -- particularly at the only two local access points to Pacific Highway via the traffic lights at Beechworth Road and Livingstone Road. The current traffic problems are mainly caused by the parents of Pymble Ladies College students dropping off their children by car (during morning peak hour) and picking up those children by car (later in the day).

The proposed development would therefore create severe traffic problems for local residents (many of whom also use the Beechworth Road and Livingstone Road entry points to Pacific Highway) and, indeed, for the PLC parents and their children.

I oppose the proposed residential development.

Yours sincerely

Wendy Flynn

I would like to lodge my objection to this project. My reasons are as follows:
1. Concerns for paedestrian and school student road safety.
2. Traffic congestion
3. Disruption to immediate neighbours
4. Noise pollution
5. Lack of local consultation
6. Too many of these projects are being given the green light in Ku Ring Gai -

I object to yet another massive development in what was once a beautiful suburb to bring up families.
I feel very sorry for people living close to the proposed development as they will loose their privacy and tranquil surrounds.There will be traffic congestion on already busy roads especially on school days.Please observe traffic at the corner of Beechworth/Pacific Hwy and Livingstone Ave/Pacific Hwy before and after school.Much time is spent sitting in queues.There is already a real issue for workers to find parking close to the station and another development will see visitors or residents taking up street parking.Pedestrian traffic could be at risk due to more vehicles on narrow roads and tight bends.
Thank you for reading my comments.

I am extremely concerned at the new proposal for development which is clearly not sustainable and will cause considerable disruption and congestion on Avon and Beechworth Road.

I do park at the station and if this proposal goes ahead in its current form then it will not only cause traffic delays at peak time and parking will become impossible.

This development if it goes ahead is a monstrosity and will severely impact on the neighbourhood. How could such a development be proposed with no through site link road in the vicinity of a major school where the traffic is bad as it is during school terms.

In the circumstances I strongly object to this proposal

I object to the project as set out in the Preferred Project Report.

As part of the Dept. of Planning and Infrastructure's Requirements for the developer to submit a PPR the developer was required to address the 320 objections lodged in February 2011. A key objection raised was the grossly excessive scale of this development given the single residential area in which the site is located.

The response given is a reduction from 11 storeys to 9! This is an insult not a response!

The second key response is a reduction in FSR from one which exceeded the maximum planning benchmarks identified by the developer (SEPP 53 and Town Centres LEP 2010) to one which still substantially exceeds those benchmarks! Again this response is an insult to the local residents who took the trouble to object in 2011.

The responses also are certainly not a meaningful response to the Preferred Project Requirements in which the Dept. of Planning and Infrastructure had to repeat its warnings to this developer about the scale of his proposal which were originally raised in the 2009 Director General's Requirements.

Further, in my view, the planning benchmark for this site has moved on with the gazettal by Planning Minister Hazzard of the Ku-ring-gai LEP (Local Centres) 2013 ("LCLEP") on 25 January 2013. That LEP prescribes a maximum FSR of 0.2:1 for the entire site except the area corresponding to proposed building #1 which is 0.8:1 maximum and a small area adjoining Beechworth Road which is 0.3:1 maximum. The Part 3A decision-maker must now have regard to the LCLEP. The developer's benchmarks no longer apply.

Further, the developer was on notice that the LCLEP was in train because it was finalized by Ku-ring-gai Council in July 2012, well before the PPR was lodged.

I strongly object to the revised project proposal.

In summary, I believe that the Developer has failed to sufficiently address the large number of serious concerns and issues raised by the Community and relevant planning agencies when the proposal was first exhibited. Furthermore, the amended proposal does not comply with current the Ku-ring-gai Local Environment Plan (Local Centres) 2012.

The Developer has again offered the community a proposal to preserve a conservation area at the centre of the site, in return for being allowed to proceed with a development proposal that remains grossly over-sized and out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood. It will have an unacceptable impact on local streetscapes. It poses long-term risks to the remnant Blue Gum High forest, riparian areas and biodiversity, which it claims to protect. It will destroy a heritage property valued by the community, and detract from other heritage properties in the area. It will contribute to already significant peak hour traffic issues in the area.

Moreover, the offer to establish a conservation area within the site carries serious risks of being poorly implemented in the long-term. It is not worth the cost of over-development on the site.

As was well documented in the very many objections to the original proposal, the development site is constrained by its topography, the presence of areas of ecological sensitivity, the residential and heritage character of the surrounding area, existing peak hour traffic congestion, the proximity to a railway line, to a major school and to a nearby bushfire prone vegetation prone site. This is a site that requires carefully considered low-density development not rampant over-development.

The proposed development site is part of a neighbourhood that has natural beauty, character, heritage value and amenity. This proposal despite its revisions will do significant damage to the natural and built environment that several generations of local residents have nurtured and protected.

I object to the project as set out in the Preferred Project Report.

As part of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure's requirements for the developer to submit a PPR the developer was required to address the 320 objections lodged in February 2011.

Apart from some reduction in impact on the BGHF, none of the main objections raised in 2011 from the public have been meaningfully or satisfactorily addressed.

Scale of the development

A key objection raised was the grossly excessive scale of this development given the single residential area in which the site is located.

The Department of Planning and Infrastructure stated that buildings 4 and 5 were too high and should be altered to "reduce the visual impacts of the overall proposal and to provide a more appropriate relationship and transition with the local urban context."

The response given - a reduction from 11 storeys to 9 - is insulting and contemptuous of the community, the Department, and the planning process.

A reduction of one storey for #5 and 2 storeys for #4 is considered to be completely unresponsive to this requirement since there is absolutely no meaningful reduction of visual impact and no meaningful change to the gross disproportion between the PPR envelopes and the surrounding single density residential landscape.

The Department also required that Building # 1 be reduced in bulk and scale to reduce its impact. Nevertheless it is little altered and thus it remains too high and bulky. In addition it is 8.47m over the roof line of 7 Avon Road ( Figure 31 in PPR) at a distance of 10.3m from the boundary of 7 Avon Road. This is considered unresponsive especially since there are no significant trees on the northern border of 7 Avon Road and the one large tree shown within the boundary of 5 Avon Road is dead.

FSR

The second key response is a reduction in FSR from one which exceeded to a breathtaking extent the maximum planning benchmarks identified by the developer to one which still substantially exceeds those benchmarks. Again this response is insulting to the local residents who took the trouble to object in 2011.

The responses also are certainly not a meaningful response to the Preferred Project Requirements in which the Department of Planning and Infrastructure had to repeat its warnings to this developer about the scale of his proposal which were originally raised in the 2009 Director General's Requirements.

Further, in my view, the planning benchmark for this site has moved on with the gazettal by Planning Minister Hazzard of the Ku-ring-gai LEP (Local Centres) 2013 ("LCLEP") on 25 January 2013. That LEP prescribes a maximum FSR of 0.2:1 for the entire site except the area corresponding to proposed building #1 which is 0.8:1 maximum and a small area adjoining Beechworth Road which is 0.3:1 maximum. The Part 3A decision-maker must now have regard to the LCLEP. The developer's benchmarks no longer apply.

Further, the developer was on notice that the LCLEP was in train because it was finalized by Ku-ring-gai Council in July 2012, well before the PPR was lodged.

There is still no recognition in the PPR that just because the site is heavily constrained (Blue Gum High Forest, steep topography, watercourse bisecting) this does not entitle a developer to allocate height and density to the remaining parts of the site. There is no planning principle of such trade-off. Clause 4.5 LCLEP specifically excludes a trade off principle in calculating an FSR.

Blue Gum High Forest

Even though the PPR increases the conservation zone significantly and even though the status as BGHF is no longer challenged by the developer (as it once was), the developer proposes to remove 3 out of 52 BGHF trees.

What an irony! If the aim is to preserve BGHF which, as a threatened ecological community, the developer is bound by law to do, then it is disingenuous in the extreme to start the conservation program by cutting down a few mature blue gums.

Screening

The bulk of the trees on the site are in the conservation area which is in the centre of the site. The buildings are located around the outside of the site and on higher ground. As a result of these factors the existing screening to the outside is very limited. This is exacerbated by the fact that the site is at the absolute high point of the local area. That is, every visual impact is magnified because the tall buildings are above the small ones. There is no doubt that all the buildings will be visible above the trees from below.

Furthermore I am very concerned that in future when trees die there will be no incentive to replant large dense trees since residents of the development will likely want to increase not decrease their views. They are not the ones at risk of being overlooked.

Also there is a substantial likelihood that big trees will be resisted by apartment residents for "safety" reasons.

Thus the impact of the buildings must be assessed on the assumption that there is no screening from the outside at all.

Other developments in Avon Road

Residents of Avon Road have recently been advised of the staged development proposal for work at Pymble Ladies College (PLC). This is for the construction of a new Aquatic and Fitness Centre to replace the existing swimming pool, relocation of the existing hockey/sports field, the construction of a new Dining and Function Centre, and the construction of a new Health Care and Wellbeing Centre.

Parts of Livingstone Avenue and Pymble Avenue and all of Avon Road and Everton St (in which there is to be a new medium-density development constructed) are all seriously affected by traffic twice a day as parents bring and collect their daughters to and from school. The addition of the new Dining and Function Centre will add traffic load since it will not be just a dining room for the boarders at the school, but, like the Aquatic and Fitness Centre, be used by the community.

The Avon Road/Beechworth development can not be considered in isolation from these other developments.

My concerns are based around the density of the project which I feel is too high for the area.

Specifically:

1. Neighbourhood access and egress
We have only two road access points - via the top of Beechworth Avenue and via Livingstone Avenue. It is already difficult to drive out of the neighbourhood on week days because of the traffic from Pymble Ladies' College. Cars are always backed up at the lights. The lights have a low priority (because of the heavy traffic on Pacific Highway) and when they do change there is little time to clear the backlog. An additional 273 households will make this a permanent traffic jam.

Vehicular entry into the neighbourhood is even more difficult because entry to Beechworth is restricted to left hand turns only. This requires residents coming from the north on Pacific Highway to do a U-turn on Telegraph road so they can track back and make the left into Beechworth. The situation on Telegraph has already resulted in accidents. An additional 273 households is going to make it very dangerous.

2. Danger to pedestrians
Many of our residents (including myself) make the twice-daily walk to/from Pymble train station. Students make the "stroll to PLC". There are no sidewalks on Beechworth, Allowah or Arilla. Increasingly I notice residents park their cars on the road in front of their properties. Beechworth and Arilla are particularly bad. It is dangerous weaving in and out of parked cars as you make the walk on a rainy day when the grassy areas at the side of the roads are sodden and too slippery to walk on. The significant increase in traffic from this development is going to make the walk even more dangerous. I have no doubt a pedestrian will be badly hurt if the project proceeds at the requested size.

3. Congestion from street parking
We are concerned residents and visitors to a complex this size will inevitably result on overflow parking on the surrounding streets. Avon road is already nearly impassable on weekdays because of student parking for PLC. When the recent development across from the tunnel to Pymble station went up, we lost about a dozen parking spaces to residents of that building who permanently park in front of that building. This new development will make it difficult or impossible for existing residents to get commuter parking near the station.

4. Negative impact on property values
When we purchased our property it was a significant investment for us. The high value of the properties was explained by the characteristics of the neighbourhood - low rise, quiet, uncrowded and private. This development will completely change the nature of the area. A set of low-rise units (2-3 story) as along Pacific Highway would blend in. A complex with 9 story buildings will NOT. This is going to reduce my property value.

Please do not let this project proceed with the density proposed!

I strongly object to the proposed new high rise units on the Avon / Beechworth Rd site for the following reasons:
1. Increase in Traffic
I have lived in the area for almost 20 years and have seen the conditions deteriorate to the current hazardous situation. Already the mornings and afternoons during term time, traffic at Avon Rd right up to Everton St and Linvingstone Ave is almost at gridlock, esp on rainy days. With cars parked on both sides of the road, Avon Rd becomes single lane and cars dodging each other pose a danger to pedestrians and drivers. There are already high rise apartments at Avon rd and Everton St with another site on Everton St coming up. The traffic sitaution will get even worse if this proposal is approved.
2. Character of area
There are already sufficient high rise sites in the area. Another site with high rise buildings will destroy the whole character of the area which has blue gum and heritage bulidings nearby on Avon Rd.
3. Ingress and Egress
Our area is a constrained site accessed only via Avon Rd and Beechworth Rd which are already unable to handle existing traffc comfortably. In the event of an emergency, eg bushfire from the adjoining forests, the additional population will cause further congestion.

Yours truly,
CN Lum

Dear NSW Government,

RE - Application Number 10_0219

I strongly object to this development.

The proposed high rise units at Avon/Beechworth Road, Pymble are completely unsuitable for the small, tight suburban road in the immediate area.

The traffic on Avon road due to the HUGE volume of moving cars from the PLC School is already very unmanageable. Parking on both sides of the road means that the road is one lane with a blind corner in the middle of it. I have had numerous occasions where there has been a near head on collision. The proposed development will add more traffic volume onto the narrow streets which is dangerous and unacceptable.

The parking situation on Avon road is very tight and the proposed development does not have enough on site parking spaces so more residents from the development will be forced to park of the narrow and congested road. This too is unacceptable.

On the Beechworth Road side of the development the proposed tall buildings will sit high on the high and be totally out of keeping with the low height of existing buildings and trees.

Heavy traffic volumes at the Beechworth Road/Pacific Hwy intersection during peak periods will be made worse by the additional cars the development will bring to the area. This again is unacceptable.

This development is totally unsuitable for the site proposed and must not proceed.

Thank you

Mark Marriott

Dear NSW Government,

RE - Application Number 10_0219

I too strongly object to this development.

The proposed high rise units at Avon/Beechworth Road, Pymble are completely unsuitable for the small, tight suburban road in the immediate area.

The traffic on Avon road due to the HUGE volume of moving cars from the PLC School is already very unmanageable. Parking on both sides of the road means that the road is one lane with a blind corner in the middle of it. I have had numerous occasions where there has been a near head on collision. The proposed development will add more traffic volume onto the narrow streets which is dangerous and unacceptable.

The parking situation on Avon road is very tight and the proposed development does not have enough on site parking spaces so more residents from the development will be forced to park of the narrow and congested road. This too is unacceptable.

On the Beechworth Road side of the development the proposed tall buildings will sit high on the high and be totally out of keeping with the low height of existing buildings and trees.

Heavy traffic volumes at the Beechworth Road/Pacific Hwy intersection during peak periods will be made worse by the additional cars the development will bring to the area. This again is unacceptable.

This development is totally unsuitable for the site proposed and must not proceed.

Thank you

Suzanne Marriott

We strongly object to the development proposal MP08_0207 / MP10_0219 due to the increase in vehicular traffic it will entail.

The present level of traffic exiting either Beechworth Road or Livingstone Avenue is horrendous during the peak periods due to PLC parents dropping off or picking up students. This development will only exacerbate the stress and dangers of these periods.

The size and scale of this development will cause significant problems of congestion on the nearby roads. Exit from this area is limited to the Pacific Highway from Beechworth Rd and could cause problems during emergency evacuations.

Traffic on both Avon and Beachworth roads in the mornings are often at a standstill due to traffic from PLC, this development would only further the traffic jams as there is no other way out from this part of Pymble

Olaf Reinhardt
19 Ashmore Ave
PYMBLE, 2073
[email protected]

26 February 2013
To Department of Planning and Infrastructure
Re: Development Proposal
MP08−_−0207 and MP10_0219
Residential Flat Development at 1, 1A, 5 Avon Rd, 1 Arilla Rd and 4, 8 Beechworth Rd, Pymble

I wish to object to this proposal. I have read the proposal in detail as well as the Council's submission on it and consider myself reasonably well informed on what is involved. I would like to support the Council's stance on this matter and to add emphasis to the following matters:

Traffic implications: this is historically basically designed for a relatively quiet backwater residential area. The large volume of traffic generated by PLC is essentially out of character, but can be tolerated because it occurs for relatively short periods twice a day. Nonetheless, waiting times at the traffic lights on Beechworth Road and Livingstone Avenue can be frustratingly long. The proponent's traffic survey is seriously flawed because, while the morning peak for PLC takes place within the survey hours, the afternoon one is all over by the time the survey was taken. This can easily be confirmed by comparing the traffic movements -in many instances the number of vehicles leaving the area in the afternoon is half the number arriving in the morning. Does the school swallow large numbers of cars each day?
Furthermore, the traffic in the area is already intense -- it is a nonsense to claim that any further traffic will add only a few seconds to the delay. There was an occasion when a fire brigade was called to the end of Avon Road but the gridlock around Livingstone Avenue was such that it was unable to get through and a brigade from Hornsby had to be called (fire brigades are allowed to turn right from the Highway to Beechworth Road). When we leave the area via the Beechworth Road entrance to the Highway, we often have to wait for two or three changes of lights (each 2.5 minutes or more) on school days and often two on Saturday mornings.
The proposal also blithely suggests that the problem of access from the development to Avon Road can be resolved by a roundabout. Avon Road is far too narrow for this to work and furthermore: why should ordinary traffic be forced to wait for traffic from a private site? I am sure there are many people living on busy roads who would love to have their own roundabout to allow them expeditious access to the road.

Scope of the proposal: Nine storeys is entirely out of keeping with the rest of the area. The number of residents contemplated will virtually double the population of the area. The FSR does not comply, there are not enough parking spaces, the application does not do justice to the trees and other vegetation in the site.

Altogether, this proposal is far too big, not well enough thought through, does not comply with standard guidelines and so should be rejected.

Signed
O.G. Reinhardt

1. The traffic on Beechworth road is very busy especially during the school hours. If we build a high rise building, with hundrends residents, local traffic will become a big problem.
2. all our local single, double story houses will lose their privacy with this high rise building on the high side of the street.

Nadia Kraefft
10A Lawley Crescent
Pymble, NSW, 2073

Director Major Projects Assessment
Department of Planning and Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY, NSW, 2001


Regarding : 1, 1A & 5 Avon Road and 4 & 8 Beechworth Road, Pymble.
Application no. MP08_0207 and MP10_0219

I am a local permanent resident in Pymble and I object to the project on the following grounds:
* Height and bulk of the Project. I believe it is unfair that 273 dwelling and 4 residential buildings of 4 to 9 stories be next door to residential 1 or 2 storey properties. It is excessive. The project will also cause substantial overshadowing to nearby residents. I am also concerned about noise and privacy loss to those living nearby the development. I am not in the building/development profession, but does this building application consider the neighbours? 273 units is surely an absurd number.
* Traffic. With Pymble Ladies College and the now `Meriton' large group of units next door to PLC, traffic comes to a standstill. If this development were to come to fruition, the local streets would become blocked. At times Avon Rd becomes a one way lane of traffic with cars already reversing, taking turns to progress forward. Beechworth Rd also will become a traffic hazard as being a two way only road, is not designed for this large dwelling of 273 units, umpteen people and umpteen cars. Local traffic already has increased 10 fold since the new massive apartment block next door to PLC has come to fruition. I strongly believe that with the increased traffic should this massive development come to fruition, someone may be killed trying to cross the road.
* Bushfire Risks. The local streets are already congested. What would happen in case of a fire or worse still a bushfire with just the local two way streets to contend with.
* Environmental Impact. This currently vacant block is overgrown with wild obnoxious weeds and who knows if it is also a dumping ground. Residents who live in Pymble love the Blue Gum High Forest, Blackbutt trees amongst other native fauna and animals. I also have concerns with the state of the water course on the block that leads to the Lane Cove River due to current obvious neglect. I believe that the current owners have nil concern with the riparian vegetation as mentioned in the Concept Plan.
Kind Regards,
Nadia Kraefft
1st March 2013

I am uploading my submission objecting to the the project. Please acknowledge receipt by email.

I am uploading my submission objecting to the the project. Please acknowledge receipt by email.

See attached pdf