Sydney Olympic Park - 4 Murray Rose Avenue Commercial Development

The development is supported, just not the acess to the site during construction. The NSW Rural Fire Service leases premise at 8 Parkview Drive Sydney Olympic Park.
As you are no doubt aware that Parkview Drive is a very narrow street and when the road side parking is considered, it is only one lane and not suitable for construction vehicles.
It is my understanding that access can be gained to the site via Murray Rose Av, which is by far more suitable as very little traffic uses this, compared to Parkview Drive.
If there are concerns of traffic associated with the construction heading in a northerly direction along Australia Av having to turn across traffic at Murray Rose Av without lights, increasing the risk of an accident, construction traffic can access Murray Rose Av from the north traveling South on Australia Av and turn left into Murray Rose Av without concern. Other factors not related to the RFS but are a more broader community concern is the two daycare centers located in Parkview drive.

I am writing to object to the proposed use of Parkview drive during the construction of 4 Murray Rose Avenue.
I am objecting to the use of Parkview drive as this will have a severe impact on the safety of our families and young children and also restrict access during drop off and pick up times.
Our families use the 15 min zones at the front of Quad 4 and also designated parking spaces at the roundabout at the end of Parkview Drive to drop off and pick up their children. During construction these spaces will no longer be safe for parents and children to get in and out of their vechiles as large trucks and increased flow of traffic will contribute to this. We have plenty of experience with this during the V8's and the Royal Easter Show as the traffic is usually diverted down parkview Drive. This is something I have raised objections with the SOP which they have also taken into consideration during the last V8's. The safety and well being of our families and young children come first and I feel that the increased flow of traffic and large construction vechiles and the noise levels will have an adverse affect on our environment.
Please review the proposal with this in mind and use Murray Rose Avenue for access to the construction site as this will be where the access to the new building will be in the future.

There is also no noise asessment impact for our building and as we are a childcare service serving families and business in the community I do not agree that Parkview drive is the best option.

Please use Murray Rose Ave for the construction but not using park view drive

Our organisation has 3 objections to this proposal. They are:

1. The proposed noise levels suggested to be low n/a - We believe they will be high by the very nature of the development.

2. Increased truck traffic on Parkview Drive - Already there are many trucks utilising Parkview Drive for an existing development. The primary objection to increased traffic is based on 2 childcare centres residing on Parkview drive and the increased risk to children. When several trucks are simultaneously entering Parkview drive and exiting Parkview drive, visibility is compromised.

3. There is currently a functioning entry point at Murray Rose Ave to the proposed development site and we believe this would be a more appropriate entry point.

4. The 2014-02-05 Appendix S Construction Management Plan is a DRAFT / Preliminary document. Does your Department plan to release final documents so affected people can comment, or do you plan to extend the EIS response deadline, when final documents are available?

5. Document 2014-02-05-13023 Final .....Part 3.pdf refers at 3.11 (page 24) to Appendix D - Infrastructure Plan. No such Appendix D - Infrastructure is included on your website, rather Appendix D is different documents. Is this document missing?

I am concerned about the noise and dust impact on our property as we are next door and only metres away. is the noise document a draft as stated?
When the building is complete access will be only through Murray Rose Ave, however they want access only via Parkview Drive during construction. I believe Parkview Drive access should be prohibited during construction as it will cause significant impact.....including noise, traffic delays, loss of parking, delays at traffic lights, dangerous situation with parents dropping off and picking up pre-schoolers at the 2 near by Kindergartens and danger for adults crossing the road. Also trucks will cause excessive pollution as many leave their engines running while they wait to enter the site. Parkview Drive is narrow and dangerous for trucks and parked cars.
Using Murray Rose Ave instead, will cause much less inconvenience. thank you.

We object to the EIS for several reasons:

1. The Noise Impact Statement for our property at 5 Parkview Drive says "low impact' n/a". It also says the noise document is a DRAFT.

The noise and dust impact on our property is significant as we are next door and just metres away. GPT should be instructed to build a 20 metre sound proof wall, to contain noise and dust along our shared boundary. This will also lessen the noise for the rest of Parkview Drive and the two kindergartens in the street, plus the offices and residential towers in the street.

Why is the noise document a DRAFT? Why is the noise impact assessed as n/a - not applicable or not available.

2. When the building is complete, access will be only through Murray Rose Avenue, yet the only construction access they want is through Parkview Drive. The site is already using Murray Rose Drive for access now (see attached photos taken March 6, 2014) and we would like it as a condition of approval that construction and road access be only allowed through Murray Rose Avenue. Parkview Drive should be prohibited.

Using only Murray Rose to access the construction site, causes little to no impact on any other property or street parking.

Using Parkview Drive will cause significant impact, including noise, traffic delays, loss of parking, delays at traffic lights, dangerous situation with parents unloading pre-school children at the two Kindy's in the street, danger for adult staff crossing the road. Further the trucks will cause excessive pollution and so too will the trucks waiting to enter the site, many of whom leave engines running. Already we have seen trucks illegally double parked in the street, waiting to enter the site (see attached photo). Parkview Drive is also narrow and dangerous for trucks and parked cars.

Using Murray Rose Avenue, will mean that trucks can wait, causing little inconvenience. Already the trucks are leaving dirt marks in Parkview Drive and Murray Rose Avenue, despite GPT saying the sites washes truck tyres. This is not happening. Today we witnessed a fluro vested security guard at the site in Parkview Drive reading his mobile phone as trucks departed.

Please see the attached documentation

I am complaining about the use of Parkway Drive , which impacts residents, offices, the kindergarten and food outlets. I am recommending the Department insist they use Murray Rose Ave for trucks and construction vehicles. This is a high residential area involving many little children.

I am a co-owner of the property next door at 5 Parkview Drive Sydney Olympic Park.

While I am happy with development in general, I am not happy with the SAFETY aspects of the proposed construction plan, that I note has been submitted in DRAFT form for some reason, and expecting approval.

The DRAFT Construction plan indicates sole use of Parkview Drive for construction trucks and vehicles, when the eventual access to the site will be Murray Rose Avenue. This is a public safety hazzard and loss of amentity for the residents and commercial properties in Parkview Drive.

The construction would be completing using the EXISTING truck and vehicle access they have to the site in Murray Rose Avenue. This should be prohibited from using Parkview Drive for any construction vehicle access, including truck waiting time.

Parkview Drive is a busy street, with a large residential tower (with foot access on Parkview Drive), many commercial offices, a place of worship, and two kindergartens (with foot access on Parkview Drive). It also houses the State Operations Centre for the NSW Rural Fire Service. On top of this it is also houses the UAC (University Admissions Centre).

Murray Rose Avenue is just access to a open area carpark and another of the developers properties. The impact is negligable compared to Parkview Drive. Trucks would even wait to enter the site in Murray Rose Avenue, without impacting public safety.

Parkview Drive is narrow, used by commercial users and residential users and by Parents and Care Givers dropping off very small children under 5 years old. It is not suitable for construction vehicles as it is narrow and busy.

Already we have seen trucks working on the proposed development blocking driveways and illegally parking on Parkview Drive (see attached photo evidence)

The other aspect, I would like to onject to is the NOISE impact. The DRAFT Construction Reports talks noise impacts on our building, but says the impact is LOW and N/A. Ths is nonsence, our property is immediately next to the proposed development and the noise impacts will be significant, not to mention the dust impact. We believe the developer should be made to install a 20 metre sound proof barrier that will stop sound and dust. We are developing and making medical devices for heart operations at our site and the noise impact is NOT low and n/a, whatever the latter means.

How can the department approve a construction report that is DRAFT? How can it ask for oublic comment with such a report?

The Department needs to take a much closer look at the construction report and ensure public safety and amenity is preserved.

I part own the property next to the proposed development at 5 Parkview Drive.

The Construction Report the Department is asking us to consider is a DRAFT, we should be considering a FINAL document. The Noise report in that document o page VIII under 4.2 says "most" of the affected commercial properties are a moderate to far distance from the site. This is NOT the truth. 4 of the 6 listed properties in the table are metres away (ranging from 1 metre - around 50 metres).

Further, it shows the sensitivity for our property as n/a, not sure if that means not available? This report is unprofessional, incomplete and cannot be relied on. It certainly cannot be used to approve this construction.

The other item is that the draft Construction report you are asking us to consider, says Parkview Drive will be used exclusively for construction vehicles, whereas Murray Rose Avenue will be used exclusively for access when the site is constructed.

Parkview Drive needs to be prohibited from construction use. The road cannot accommodate trucks, as it is already has two kindergartens, and parked cars, only allowing one truck down at a time. They should use Murray Rose Avenue, as that would not impact on anyone.

See attached for photo's showing trucks illegally parked and double parked in Parkview Drive.

The other matter is the report says that the Developer will wash all truck tyres that need washing before they leave the site. This is NOT happening now, and we have photo's to prove it.

Thank you

As a co-owner of the neighbouring property at 5 Parkview Drive Sydney Olympic Park, I would like to make the following OBJECTIONS.

I object to the EIS for several reasons:

1. When the building is complete, access will be only through Murray Rose Avenue, yet the only construction access they want is through Parkview Drive. The site is already using Murray Rose Drive for access now (see attached photos taken March 6, 2014) and we would like it as a condition of approval that construction and road access be ONLY allowed through Murray Rose Avenue. Parkview Drive should be prohibited.

Using only Murray Rose to access the construction site, causes little to no impact on any other property or street parking.

Using Parkview Drive will cause significant impact, including noise, traffic delays, loss of parking, delays at traffic lights, dangerous situation with parents unloading pre-school children at the two Kindy's in the street, danger for our adult staff crossing the road. Further the trucks will cause excessive pollution and so too will the trucks waiting to enter the site, many of whom leave engines running. Already we have seen trucks illegally double parked this year in Parkview Drive , waiting to enter the site (see attached photo). Parkview Drive is also too narrow and dangerous for trucks and parked cars. Its a public safety issue.

Using Murray Rose Avenue, will mean that trucks can wait, causing little inconvenience.

Already the trucks are leaving dirt marks in Parkview Drive and Murray Rose Avenue, despite GPT saying the site washes truck tyres. This is not happening. Today we witnessed a fluro vested security guard at the site in Parkview Drive reading his mobile phone as trucks departed. Zero security and zero care for the environment.

2. The Noise Impact Statement for our property at 5 Parkview Drive says "low impact' n/a". It also says the noise document is a DRAFT.

The noise and dust impact on our property is significant as we are next door and just metres away. Our property is used to design, test and produce medical instruments for heart operations. It is also used by a charity to store donations. GPT should be instructed to build a 20 metre sound proof wall, to contain noise and dust along our shared boundary. This will also lessen the noise for the rest of Parkview Drive and the two kindergartens in the street, plus the offices and residential towers in the street.

Why is the noise document a DRAFT? Why is the noise impact assessed as n/a - not applicable or not available.

The Noise Impact document is woefully inadequate, unprofessional and incomplete. To say the noise impact on a property a few metres is not applicable or not available is clearly inaccurate and to submit the document as a DRAFT is unprofessional and hasty.

We do not object to progress, we do object to the inadequate EIS on the points raised.