Royal Rehabilitation Center - Residential

After viewing the second stage of the proposal I have noted buildings adjoining 4 Kenneth Street and 9 Kenneth Street plus adjoining residence on Victoria Road will have 2 storey development with rear garage access. Residential buildings with such access will use driveways which traverse along the current North facing and South facing existing dwellings within 1 metre of existing rsidential walls.
I ask for Frasers to consider reposition the drive-ways access to the rear of the proposed 2 storey residences to minimise noise and undue traffic vibration.

I object to the project for the following reason, that being the inevitable increased flow of traffic on local streets if the proposed development proceeds. Parry Street Ryde/Putney runs between Charles Street and Morrison Road and is used by many motorists to avoid the traffic control light signals at the intersection of Charles St./Morrison Road. A major concern is the Putney Public School which fronts both Parry St, and Morrison Rd. On 'event' days at the school, Parry St. is totally parked out along with both before and after school, parents/parked vehicles dropping off or picking up children making it very difficult and sometimes bordering on dangerous to exit ones driveway. This project will lead to increased traffic volumes in Parry Street which will accordingly increase the likelihood of motor vehicle/pedestrain collisions occurring in this street. There is no provision for protecting the protecting the current residents from the increased traffic noise and increased traffic flow.
The obvious solution is to block Parry Streetat the intersection of Morrison Road. It would be interesting to see if any State Govt. Dept. or Local Govt would be brave enough to make that decision.

Dear Director General

Re: Frasers Putney, Stage 1, Phase 1 Residential Development (MP10_0189)

After attending the Community Open Day last Saturday I felt compelled to write about the concerns I have with regard to this development.

Firstly I would like to say that the development itself looks attractive, and will make use of what was an underutilised site. I also understand this application only deals currently with Stage one of the development but this is one of three stages and once completed the impacts on the local community are far reaching and need to be addressed. You cannot just approve one stage, knowing it is part of a much larger development, without considering the development in its entirety. Departments must work together to ensure that impacts of developments are fully considered. For example Frasers mentioned that certain things were not their responsibility that they were either the responsibility of the Council or the RTA. Why is there not a more holistic approach to managing all the issues that arise when a development of this scale is considered?

The main issue I have relates to traffic i.e. impacts, access, congestion, safety. Also once the site is complete it will have a huge impact on the local shopping village, schools, public transport.

1/ Traffic

a) Access to Charles Street

Currently the proposal suggests that access will be mainly via Victoria Road and Charles Street. The proposal also advises that the access from Victoria Road will be a ‘left in left out’ situation. Frasers state:
The site layout has been re-designed so that the bulk of development is towards Victoria Road, and so the majority of vehicle movements will be via Victoria Road.
This is simply not correct as any car travelling east will only be able to use Charles Street. This will ultimately mean people will use Charles Street when they need to go to Gladesville, the city or anywhere east. Charles Street is already a very busy street with a steep slope with two primary schools on or near this road. Where Charles Street meets Victoria Road is already congested with people trying to get on to Victoria Road.

Access on to Charles Street should be left hand turn only with a medium strip down the access part of Charles to avoid people turning right. This will force the traffic onto Victoria Road (being the main arterial road in the area) and keep the traffic off already overburdened side streets.

b) Traffic lights

The application advises that Frasers have applied to the RTA for lights on Victoria Road. I strongly support this application. The traffic lights will not cause any delay to the traffic on Victoria Road if coordinated with the traffic lights on Charles Street. In fact I believe this should be the main access to the site.

The Putney Village already has to contend with cars racing through it doing the ‘rat run’ to try and avoid Victoria Road - adding hundreds more cars will just devastate the local shopping centre.

c) Traffic Calming Devices

i/ I also suggest that a traffic calming device such as a speed hump be installed along Charles Street. People regularly speed down this street, as it is used as a thoroughfare and increased traffic will only exacerbate this problem.

ii/ Along Parry Street there also should be chicanes installed which will protect the children going to and from the school by discouraging people speeding along Parry Street.

d) Morrison Road

Although this access point will not be available for some time, it is worth considering that Morrison Road onto Church Street is already a highly congested intersection. In peak hour it can take several changes of lights before a car reaches the intersection. Increase in traffic flow will have a significant impact to the surrounding residents.

e) Parking at Putney Village

The available parking at Putney Village is already often full to capacity. Although the Frasers application suggests that most people will walk to the village to shop the reality is that very few people will carry their heavy shopping bags up the steep hill to Victoria Road apartments. I and many people I know live within walking distance of the local shops but most of us tend to drop in either to or from school/work to do our shopping. There is also very little street parking and the car park is in complete disrepair and desperately requires complete resurfacing.

f) Pedestrian Crossings

There will need to be more pedestrian crossings as the one in Parry Street and the set of traffic lights at the corner of Morrison Road and Charles Street are not be enough with the extra traffic. The area has a mixture of elderly and young people. With the extra cars on the road they will not be able to cross Charles Street.

g) Use of Public Transport via buses and ferry

You can only assume that a certain percentage of residents will chose to use the ferry service at Kissing Point. Again the parking area is inadequate and consideration should be given to the effect it may have even if a further 15 cars parked there to commute to the city or Parramatta.

Although Victoria Road is well services by buses it is not unusual that my husband has to let buses go are they are ‘sardine’ tins. Once again the impact of possibly a few hundred more commuters per day needs to be considered.

h) Capacity at the local primary schools

With a total of 791 residences being the complete development it can be assumed that this will generate, conservatively, at least 100 children of which most will attend the local primary schools. Currently Putney Public is almost full to capacity and St Charles is in a similar situation. How can you conceivable approve a development of this size without taking into consideration the impact and current capacity of the local schools. Public schools are obliged to take in area applicants and although the full impact will not be realised for a few years yet I strongly urge you to consider discussing this with the local schools to see if and how they are going to be able to meet the local demand. To date no one has approached the schools on this matter.

g) To sum up

The current population of Putney is approx 3191 people. This development will add at a reasonable guess a further 2000 people, in effect, increasing local the population by about 66%. That alone should indicate that it will have a significant effect on the local area.

Frasers state:

The peak hour traffic generation of the proposed Stage 1 Phase 1 residential development is estimated to be 65 vehicles per hour. As detailed in the Traffic Report, this level of traffic generation is able to be fully accommodated at the Charles Street ingress/egress without adverse impacts on traffic flows, and is less than the approved Concept Plan peak flow for this intersection of 120 vehicles per hour.

This means even on Frasers’ own documents the amount of peak hour traffic when the site is fully developed will adversely affect the traffic congestion in the area in the extreme.

It is not appropriate to deal with the traffic only from stage 1. As a Part 3A development the whole concept must be considered. This means the detrimental affect the amount of traffic will have on the local area. Even now without the extra cars the time it takes to get onto Victoria Road in the peak hour periods is very long, these extra cars (and the others when the other stages are developed) will just cause the roads in the area to be gridlocked with people travelling to work, the two schools, kindergartens. We do not want to see a serious accident or worse a death in our area and feel that these suggestions are the minimum that is required hopefully alleviate the potential for this to happen.


We understand that this project will go ahead BUT as concerned residents and active community members we implore you to fully understand the issues that need to be addressed as part of a holistic approach to this application.

Only proper due diligence consideration will ensure that this development does not adversely impact our unique suburb and will ensure that this fits harmoniously into the current landscape.

Kind regards
Tonia Amy and
Andrew Wilson

My name is katherine clark and I am writing to express my considerable concern about the proposed stage one development at the royal rehab site at putney.

my concerns are on a number of fronts.

1. traffic generated and access to site.

2. Lack of adequate pedestrian safety.

3.Impact on Parking at Putney shops.

4. Congestion on overloaded and fundamentally unsafe road network in the immediate vicinity. Particularily the Acacia/Morrison/Parry St. intersection.

5.Lack of proper access from Victoria rd.

6. inadequate traffic impact studies.

The current proposal plans to increase the traffic output from the site onto Charles st as its primary entrance. This is of particular concern to me because as yet there has been no plans approved by the RTA for access onto Victoria rd.
Indeed Frasers have identified that traffic lights are not required at this stage to accomodate the Stage one Traffic.

The outcome of no lights on to this major road would mean that traffic would be unable to access R onto victoria rd, and therefore all traffic planning on heading east will have to exit onto Charles st. and then either head through the shopping center, or travel down Parry st. or head north to victoria rd.
All routes are pathologically flawed.
The other exits onto Morrison rd belong to later stages of this development and will not a usable for some time. Therefore ALL traffic not heading west traveling out,or returning from the west eastward will need to use the Charles st exit until the development is complete.
Currently just through the roundabout at Parry st ,on the R hand side of Charles st. are the only access into the shopping centers car park, and a drop off point for a child care center both which particularly in the mornings and afternoons have significant R turning traffic. which continually holds up traffic
.
People accessing the shopping centre and doctors surgery and cafes at all times currently have very limited parking and
traffic entering Charles st from Parry st after collecting children in the afternoons is frequently already banked up.
At this point in order to avoid an already highly congested intersection and local shopping strip , traffic might choose to travel down Parry st towards Morrison Rd.

Parry st is a poorly signposted school zone that leads to one of the most incomprehensibly dangerous intersections in Sydney. The access point to Morrison rd.has Acacia avenue leading to an uphill intersection with no clear sign posting as to right of way. This intersection is already misunderstood by even most of the local residents who rely on good road manners to discern right of way. Traffic already frequently fails to give way to traffic on morrison rd and shoots straight through this intersection.
I should add here that in the afternoons during the week this intersection is also heavily populated by pedestrians.
Traffic traveling west on morrison rd must give way to downhill traffic on morrison rd travelling east, and more than two cars wishing to go straight ahead into Parry st. blocks eastbound traffic on Morrison rd. completely.

Which leaves The charles st lights onto victoria rd. Also a school zone and church grounds with one lane turning R. one L approx a hundred meters from a single lane round-about.

That cars are problematic is an issue. But it is pedestrians who are most at risk with this current proposal.
The nsw government are trying to plan for suburbs that encourage either pedestrian ,cycle or discourage car use.
Currently Charles st is acting as a minor arterial. Well in excess of the Rta guidelines. The topography of this area means that Charles st is a long hill of a decent enough grade that it is considerably difficult to maintain 50kph. Currently the only safe way for pedestrians to cross east/west is at the traffic lights at the cnr Morrison and charles st.

Traffic exiting Henry st has to accelerate uphill to enter the traffic flow and down hill break very firmly to enter Henry st.

Though there is a plan for"a" speed limiting device somewhere on charles st we sincerely believe that this is manifestly inadequate.

Current pedestrian traffic that needs to cross charles st are
predominantly. clients of the rehab center and children from putney public. Both quite slow and with impared spacial awareness The crossing at parry st is an issue . Currently pedestrians have to go around the corner into parry st to cross the road. this has two quite severe implications.
Firstly they are out of line of sight of traffic entering parry st,now accelerating after breaking all the way down the hill.
and traffic coming down the hill is partially obscured by the dwelling on the corner and some shrubbery.

No extra parking has been planned for Putney Village. The supermarket car-park is already overused and disintegrating.
The amount of traffic entering and exiting this carpark frequently causes traffic chaos as it can only use this one exit.

Frasers suggestion that residents who live at the upper site will walk to the supermarket and then carry their groceries 400 meters uphill is at best misguided, and certainly not a reflection of an understanding of the topography of their site.
It has I believed thoroughly underestimated and under-reported both the current situation and the impact of an extra 400+ traffic movements on the local network.

Clearly the royal rehab residents , families and staff have used this exit for the past many years, and I am not suggesting that this should cease.
Rather I believe that the rehab site should continue to use this exit and that the planning of roads on the site be designed to promote exiting onto victoria rd by residents.

furthermore, whilst the director general has requested that traffic at each of the impacted intersections be examined. we believe that a proper impact study study on the traffic network aound the site be completed, with an emphasis on making pedestrian traffic safe well into the future.

This site will generate many families coming to the putney precinct. and attending Putney public school. safe pedestrian and Rehab. client access across the road network must be planned before development occurs. the roads here are already an accident waiting to happen. , The City networks have already identified crossing Charles st as one of its local networks. his did not include having to go to the lights at putney to cross the road.

Charles st, because of its topography and overuse is already inherently dangerous,. More traffic onto this road will exacerbate that risk.
More Families + more children = more bikes and scooters.
Fraser,s new parklands are intending to provide a community
open space. access is a critical issue here. it has not been fully addressed by this submission.
Frasers contending that they are only responsible for their site does not absolve them of their responsibilities.
Traffic issues related to the initial concept plan approved previously have not been adequately addressed or investigated.

As a minimum, we would like to see the whole shopping precinct changed to a 40kph area. This may at least reduce the chance of a fatal accident. We would like proper flashing school zone sign in both Parry and Morrison Roads.
. Proper pedestrian crossing points in both Parry and Charles sts. Preferably two in Charles.
The consideration of a speed camera in Charles St.
A proper investigation into the road traffic network around the site, not simply a statistical study of traffic movements.
Charles St exit being used for the Royal Rehab centers use.

On conclusion I believe that Frasers have also quite deliberately neglected to include in this submission documentation of the local communities considerable concern about the impacts of traffic generated by this development. It is one thing to measure how many vehicles can travel on a road, it is quite another to properly look at the whole picture or context within which it is being built, and to properly plan and provide good supporting infrastructure to enable their development to become an integral part of the community within which it operates .
It is fundamentally about safety and about building communities that are well integrated and designed to enhance the suburbs and spaces within which we rest, work and play.
Meeting the minimum criteria for developmental consent is fundamentally inadequate. At least is is for the people who will be living in and around them.

I look forward to your response.

Katherine Clark