While some elements of the plan are reasonable, the bulk and scale of the
high rise structure is completely out of keeping with the character of
the area and out of keeping with the objective of creating a vibrant
business community.

While it is important to have an integrated development, this does not
necessitate the scale or bulk of the proposed structure.

Better design can create a less overbearing structure, while at the
same time catering for a diverse range of uses.

Being able to create single, large floor plates should NOT be the
basis for development considerations.

The objective should be to create vibrant community, and that means
looking at the needs of small businesses first.

According to figures compiled by Saul Eslake, the well-respected
economist, business that employ fewer than 20 people account for
roughly 45% of private sector employment.

These businesses should be at the heart of any design considerations,
and they require much smaller floor plates with good cultural
connectivity to other such businesses as well as the community in
general.

Small businesses are where the future will be created.

Small business and development that creates spaces with high levels of
community amenity do not require the excessive bulk and scale of the
existing proposal, in fact, such bulk and scale is the opposite of
what these businesses want and need.

The design should be rethought, putting the engine of future economic
growth (small businesses) first.

i am supporting the new victoriacross station it will do a very good job
for lots of people.sydney needs lots of new trains for the future.i
agree

I like the proposed integrated development (option 1) for the Victoria
Cross station and wholly support it's design.

I would like more information on the Northern entrance to the station
(Cnr of Mclaren st and Miller) is a similar building going to be
proposed? why has there been seemingly no open discussion of this
secondary entrance, it seems like it's a very large site for simply an
escalator? I would like to see more density and more mixed use
development over this entrance as well as it provides urban living/
working without reliance on parking and private vehicles. However I
feel that Planning NSW is keeping this in the dark despite works
continuing on the project.

To Developer and NSW Government,

I am a resident leaving in [redacted]. I oppose and welcome the new
development. Please, be mindful to give privacy to the apartment
owners which is on the eastern side of the high rise. where apartment
is within approx. 30 meter of the reach. I am sure that the office
workers in the future are not that keen to see resident. I favor
maximum building height to be less than RL168m. Please, be mindful
that this new building doesn't have much parking space compare to the
floor area. Although, it isn't proposed but in the near future, I have
no doubt there will be an another development on the other side of the
berry/miller street. Please bare in mind maximising the floor space
and the height will make the street dull and crowded.

There does not seem to be an underground connection to the existing N
Sydney station???

See attached separate submissions regarding building 1 and building 2 / community building.

I refer to the the Appendix U Stakeholder and Community Engagement Summary Report 2016-01-08 on the major projects planning website. Development of the Australian Technology Park (application number SSD 15_7317).

I refer to the issues raised with Mirvac in above document under Key Issues. Attached for your reference.

I strongly object to the currently proposed Mirvac application for the development of the Australian Technology Park (application number SSD 15_7317).

Mirvac's current plans for development of the Australian Technology Park are misleading. They are deliberately not showing where the real development will be.

Mirvac's current plans will bring shadows to our street on Henderson Road, The proposal (BUILDING LOT 9) will shadow a whole block of houses across the road from the proposed building. Please see the relevant document attached (Mirvac shadow plan).

Key Issue #1
Mirvac state that the proposed building closest to Henderson road (BUILDING LOT 9) and others will be no higher than Channel 7, Channel 7 is not situated at the edge of the fence line where Mirvac propose to put BUILDING LOT 9.

If you refer to their postcard marketing to residents, there is not one image of where the actual building (BUILDING LOT 9) is. This is unacceptable and deceiving.
BUILDING LOT 9 will overshadow Henderson Road in Alexandria.
Please refer to the Architectural Design Report and Drawings Part 12, 2016-01-08

Mirvac do not show the building (BUILDING LOT 9) overshadowing Henderson Road in Alexandria.
Mirvac show tennis courts which, according to the plans do not exist as this is where the new building (BUILDING LOT 9) wiil be.

Mirvac say 72 people attended the community information session. Out of 7000 postcards sent this is a very low number. Only 18 feedback forms were received, hardly a representation of the local residents

The new building (BUILDING LOT 9) does not need to be designed like this.

Mirvac have not documented that the building (BUILDING LOT 9) facing Henderson Road will have its lights on 24x7 which it will as Channel 7 currently do this. This is unacceptable to me and other residents.

Mirvac actually state that this current proposal is expected to address:
The management of views and vistas from the public domain, and residential properties; and impacts on streetscapes. They have done none of these things.

Key Issue #2 -
Mirvac did not create building plans of excellence, only when the NSW planning department requested them to review their plans did these change.

Mirvac are not enhancing the landscape, not building any additional grass areas, all they are doing is imposing on residents on Henderson Road and blocking out the sunlight.

Mirvac are not concerned with excellence for building design or would have created an excellent design to start with that did not shadow and did not impose so close to Henderson Road. I am unaware of other buildings directly facing residential properties as this was is proposed to do.

Key Issue #2
There will be no on street parkng for local residents available, this is already limited.
Why is time-limited street parking being increased?

Currently outside my residence the parking is limited to 2 hours from 8am to 10pm which is ridiculous and should at least be limited (if it has to be) to 8pm as it is in Redfern. this makes no sense.

Key Issue #3
There has been very little engagement with local communities aside from the postcard they sent.


Key Issue #4
Construction will be noisy and disruptive.
We already have to put up with large trucks parking on henderson road when they are repairing the road and this occurs late at night and on occasions all night.

Key Issue #5
Mirvac are not providing anything to the community that is not at the ATP already.
A higher quality public domain is requested. However, looking at the shadow plans this current public park will be mostly in the dark all day, which will in turn mean the grass and plants will suffer and die.

Key Issue #7
Whilst the locomotive workshops shall remain, Mirvac should not be allowed to transfer the Gross Floor Area (GFP). Why do they need to do this. It appears they will take part of the GFP from the Locomotive site and use it elsewhere, it is unacceptable for Mirvac to take a 5% increase in land space for commercial use.

Key Issue #8
There should be no residential development on site as part of this proposal.

Key Issue #9
There will be a local traffic impact
We already have the Westconnex coming in which means another gridlock on top of a gridlock.

Key Issue #10
There is a lack of public transport to Alexandria. We have Redfern train station but the buses are practically non existent to take you there.
Henderson road has one bus that stops running early evening and has a very limited timetable.

As per the Appendix U Stakeholder and Community Engagement Summary Report, Redwatch Redfern seem to have the issues outlined clearly in points listed below:

Preservation of heritage buildings and access to heritage collection items
Heritage Interpretation Strategy, management of heritage assets and potential for tours/public education
Parking on ATP site
Parking in local residential roads by construction workers
Height of buildings, built form and existing controls on the site
Proposed mix of sports courts
Workplace travel plans for CBA staff
Administration and operation of community building
Proposed use and nature of community building space* Potential for future north/south crossing of railway tracks
Capacity of local infrastructure to handle new development
Safety in public areas and at night
Managing construction impacts including noise, dust and air quality


Please consider this objection seriously. The current proposal has no benefit to residents or the community, it only benefits Mrivac.

Rgds
Virginia Cottrell