Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust
Object
Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust
Object
SYDNEY
,
New South Wales
Message
The application report raises a serious concern for the Trust.
The applicant has made reference to an `intention' to meet the limitations imposed by the sun plane. The Trust holds that the sun plane is a critical instrument to protect the horticulture in the northern part of the Gardens.
It cannot be overemphasised that even the slightest derivation with respect to the height and profile of the tower in the context of the sun plane would have a devastating impact on the gardens.
The Royal Botanic Gardens seeks a firm assurance that the requirements of the sun plane will be met by the development so as to not increase the impact on the Royal Botanic Gardens beyond the levels imposed by the current height and profile of the Intercontinental Hotel tower.
The applicant has made reference to an `intention' to meet the limitations imposed by the sun plane. The Trust holds that the sun plane is a critical instrument to protect the horticulture in the northern part of the Gardens.
It cannot be overemphasised that even the slightest derivation with respect to the height and profile of the tower in the context of the sun plane would have a devastating impact on the gardens.
The Royal Botanic Gardens seeks a firm assurance that the requirements of the sun plane will be met by the development so as to not increase the impact on the Royal Botanic Gardens beyond the levels imposed by the current height and profile of the Intercontinental Hotel tower.
D & A Markakis Pty Ltd
Object
D & A Markakis Pty Ltd
Object
Newtown
,
New South Wales
Message
Please see submission made via uploaded document.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Alexandria
,
New South Wales
Message
THE PROPOSAL IS NOT SUPPORTED IN ITS CURRENT FORM.
Concerns:
1. Size of units and accommodation planning
2. Lack of environmental efforts
3. Reluctance to pay development contributions
4. Overshadowing of current buildings
5. Impact of increased pedestrians crossing Gibbons St
1. Size of units and accommodation planning:
The standard regulated size for single occupancy rooms is 12m sq. Just
because rooms in other developments are less than this does not make
it acceptable. Standards are set for a reason, so one questions why
the proposed private space is so mean - perhaps to allow more bodies
to be squeezed in to increase profits?
While the inference is that each unit will have a single occupant, it
is also stated that each unit is restricted to a maximum of 2
occupants. Is this acceptable?
Stating that " smaller rooms translate to provision of greater housing
supply as well as more affordable housing" does not address the
various impacts of overcrowding. The people who are likely to occupy
these units are students, probably on visas, and thus unlikely to
complain. It is unrealistic to anticipate that everyone in the units
will get on, be sociable and utilise the common areas happily.
In boarding houses, which essentially what this development is, 30% of
units are required to have private open space. It is projected that
there will be no balconies, so will the "lost" private open space be
added to the required communal space?
With regard to the communal kitchens, the documentation does not
appear to reflect the stated standard requirements. The information
presented is non specific and ambiguous, and thus one suspects that
the requirements will not be "exactly" met. Recirculating range hoods
are not nearly as effective as those that vent externally. The
communal kitchens should have an automatic external ventilation duct.
For those units with kitchenettes, it is imperative that if external
venting is unavailable, that the filters are easily replaceable.
It is critical the ventilation, acoustic and insulation proposals be
implemented in full.
The planning of the laundry facilities is intriguing. The number of
washing machines per unit has been reduced from the standard as the
size of the washing machine has been increased. Students/single people
usually have small loads, so a large washing machine, even if weight
adjusted, would appear to be a waste of water and energy. It is
unlikely the charge for the usage would be weight adjusted. It is also
unlikely that those living in the units would do a communal wash to
take advantage of the larger sized machine.
Wouldn't it make sense to have more smaller machines that are both
time, energy and water efficient ?
While it is stated that there would be a short time cycled wash as an
option, this could also be an option on smaller machines. Having a
reduced number of machines also potentially increases the wait time to
use a machine.
Will there be a time out for use of washing machines during peak
energy use periods?
Traditionally blocks of flats had a series of clothes lines available
for the occupiers to dry their clothes at no cost to themselves or the
environment. While it is acknowledged that this is difficult in tower
blocks why are other options not sought? A drying room with through
ventilation, a north facing glassed room, clothes lines in each
apartment ? Why is it now acceptable for driers to be the only option
? An environmental and financial cost.
It is stated that 19 units will be provided for those with
disabilities. Unfortunately, there is no information as to what this
entails. Larger? Different design? Variable bench heights? Wider
doorways? Wheelchair accessible showers and bathrooms? Will these
occupants also be able to utilise the laundry facilities, communal
kitchens, outdoor spaces or lifts easily?
It is stated that vibration and noise transmission from the underlying
rail tracks will be ameliorated due to improved design factors that
will be implemented during the construction phase. Consideration also
needs to be given to the fact that State Rail is neglecting its
obligations with regard to the frequency of its maintenance schedule,
thus increasing the likelihood of an increased impact from noise and
vibration.
Gibbons St Reserve is the public open space for multiple apartment
buildings in the area. This is yet another, and certainly not the
last, increasing the potential demand past what the capacity of the
area can support. Gibbons St Reserve is a sloping grass area, not
suitable for the playing of any games. While it is appreciated as a
tree lined green open space, it is also on the opposite side of
Gibbons St, a perpetually busy street with very limited pedestrian
access from the proposed development.
2. Lack of Environmental Efforts:
IS IT GOOD ENOUGH TO MEET THE "MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF ENERGY
EFRICIENCY AND THERMAL CONTROL"? Should not the goal be to excel and
be innovative in ways to minimise energy requirements and maximise
thermal control?
Double glazing is more energy efficient than thicker glass, yet this
is not specified. External window coverings or blinds are also omitted
from the proposal. A very effective way of reducing unwanted summer
heat. Why?
Photo voltaic solar power is mentioned as a possibility......should
this not be an essential component of the development?
Are there individual instantaneous hot water units in each unit? This
would reduce the volume of water wasted before the water became hot,
and also reduce the cost of the hot water. I acknowledge that this is
expensive in the first instance, but it would also encourage the
occupiers to reduce their water waste and costs.
There is no mention of water recycling or stored rainwater for use on
the planned garden areas.
Gibbons St becomes a wind tunnel north of Marian St. There is
discussion about reducing the wind impacts due to, and on, the Gibbon
St frontage. Is there no design available for small wind turbines to
take advantage of this phenomenon? Perhaps this could be a challenge
for the architects and environmental planners, or even those with
ideas at UTS, Sydney University or the UNSW?
Efficient recycling will be an ongoing challenge and ongoing education
should be anticipated.
During construction, there will need to be continual prevention of
spoil and rubbish into the gutters. In a vast majority of cases,
containment of contamination is an initial effort only.
And back to the laundry proposal - are larger washing machines and
clothes driers the best option?
3. Reluctance to pay development contributions:
It would appear that the development is considered a SSD, and that the
controls over this development swing between B2 and B4 zoning. My
interpretation is that there are different regulations for "affordable
rental housing" and boarding houses, and that this development is
seeking to reduce the number of regulations it needs to comply with.
Due to the fact that the development will increase the stock of
affordable housing, albeit for students, a 20% increase in capacity is
allowed. This is a commercial development, and with the increased
capacity comes an ongoing increase in profit. This is further
increased with the proposed reduced room size and lack of private open
space.
My opinion is that all required development contributions should be
paid.
4. Overshadowing of current buildings:
An increased number of apartments at 1 Margaret St will have no direct
"solar access". The proposed development is to the north of these
apartments, with a narrow road separating them.
While the report was prepared by experts, it is hard to conceive how
an 18 story tower block would not have a greater overshadowing impact
on this building.
It is also likely that the overshadowing will negatively impact the
Gibbons St Reserve, especially during the winter months.
5. Impact of increased pedestrians crossing Gibbons St.
It is postulated that this development is an affordable housing
development, specifically targeting students. It is unlikely that
these students will be attending UNSW, more likely UTS, Notre Dame,
Sydney Uni or private colleges within the Sydney CBD. Consequently,
all these students will need to cross Gibbons St. The pedestrian
crossing at the Redfern St/ Gibbons St intersection is currently
congested, with people crossing between cars as the traffic slows.
With an increased number of people crossing, this hazard is going to
increase, as is the potential for an accident, as the footpath on
Gibbons St is narrow adjacent to the railway station.
The structure of the new entrance to Redfern Station is poor to
substandard. Pedestrians heading for the station from Gibbons St clash
with those leaving the station, all on the narrow very busy corner of
Gibbons St and Lawson St. There are also signalised pedestrian traffic
lights at this point, but those waiting to cross just add to the
congestion.
Service vehicles for the units or the commercial properties will need
to use either Gibbons St or Regent St, adding to the already busy
traffic flow.
CONCLUSION:
As a SSD, the proposal should be held to the highest standards in
design, energy efficiency and reduced environmental impacts. From my
reading of the proposal, it is significantly lacking in all these
aspects, and there is a degree of ambiguity which does not bode well
for an optimum result. Consequently, I believe that the proposal
should be withdrawn until all standards have been met, and innovative
initiative shown in achieving the highest standards of design, energy
efficiency and reduced environmental impact.
Concerns:
1. Size of units and accommodation planning
2. Lack of environmental efforts
3. Reluctance to pay development contributions
4. Overshadowing of current buildings
5. Impact of increased pedestrians crossing Gibbons St
1. Size of units and accommodation planning:
The standard regulated size for single occupancy rooms is 12m sq. Just
because rooms in other developments are less than this does not make
it acceptable. Standards are set for a reason, so one questions why
the proposed private space is so mean - perhaps to allow more bodies
to be squeezed in to increase profits?
While the inference is that each unit will have a single occupant, it
is also stated that each unit is restricted to a maximum of 2
occupants. Is this acceptable?
Stating that " smaller rooms translate to provision of greater housing
supply as well as more affordable housing" does not address the
various impacts of overcrowding. The people who are likely to occupy
these units are students, probably on visas, and thus unlikely to
complain. It is unrealistic to anticipate that everyone in the units
will get on, be sociable and utilise the common areas happily.
In boarding houses, which essentially what this development is, 30% of
units are required to have private open space. It is projected that
there will be no balconies, so will the "lost" private open space be
added to the required communal space?
With regard to the communal kitchens, the documentation does not
appear to reflect the stated standard requirements. The information
presented is non specific and ambiguous, and thus one suspects that
the requirements will not be "exactly" met. Recirculating range hoods
are not nearly as effective as those that vent externally. The
communal kitchens should have an automatic external ventilation duct.
For those units with kitchenettes, it is imperative that if external
venting is unavailable, that the filters are easily replaceable.
It is critical the ventilation, acoustic and insulation proposals be
implemented in full.
The planning of the laundry facilities is intriguing. The number of
washing machines per unit has been reduced from the standard as the
size of the washing machine has been increased. Students/single people
usually have small loads, so a large washing machine, even if weight
adjusted, would appear to be a waste of water and energy. It is
unlikely the charge for the usage would be weight adjusted. It is also
unlikely that those living in the units would do a communal wash to
take advantage of the larger sized machine.
Wouldn't it make sense to have more smaller machines that are both
time, energy and water efficient ?
While it is stated that there would be a short time cycled wash as an
option, this could also be an option on smaller machines. Having a
reduced number of machines also potentially increases the wait time to
use a machine.
Will there be a time out for use of washing machines during peak
energy use periods?
Traditionally blocks of flats had a series of clothes lines available
for the occupiers to dry their clothes at no cost to themselves or the
environment. While it is acknowledged that this is difficult in tower
blocks why are other options not sought? A drying room with through
ventilation, a north facing glassed room, clothes lines in each
apartment ? Why is it now acceptable for driers to be the only option
? An environmental and financial cost.
It is stated that 19 units will be provided for those with
disabilities. Unfortunately, there is no information as to what this
entails. Larger? Different design? Variable bench heights? Wider
doorways? Wheelchair accessible showers and bathrooms? Will these
occupants also be able to utilise the laundry facilities, communal
kitchens, outdoor spaces or lifts easily?
It is stated that vibration and noise transmission from the underlying
rail tracks will be ameliorated due to improved design factors that
will be implemented during the construction phase. Consideration also
needs to be given to the fact that State Rail is neglecting its
obligations with regard to the frequency of its maintenance schedule,
thus increasing the likelihood of an increased impact from noise and
vibration.
Gibbons St Reserve is the public open space for multiple apartment
buildings in the area. This is yet another, and certainly not the
last, increasing the potential demand past what the capacity of the
area can support. Gibbons St Reserve is a sloping grass area, not
suitable for the playing of any games. While it is appreciated as a
tree lined green open space, it is also on the opposite side of
Gibbons St, a perpetually busy street with very limited pedestrian
access from the proposed development.
2. Lack of Environmental Efforts:
IS IT GOOD ENOUGH TO MEET THE "MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF ENERGY
EFRICIENCY AND THERMAL CONTROL"? Should not the goal be to excel and
be innovative in ways to minimise energy requirements and maximise
thermal control?
Double glazing is more energy efficient than thicker glass, yet this
is not specified. External window coverings or blinds are also omitted
from the proposal. A very effective way of reducing unwanted summer
heat. Why?
Photo voltaic solar power is mentioned as a possibility......should
this not be an essential component of the development?
Are there individual instantaneous hot water units in each unit? This
would reduce the volume of water wasted before the water became hot,
and also reduce the cost of the hot water. I acknowledge that this is
expensive in the first instance, but it would also encourage the
occupiers to reduce their water waste and costs.
There is no mention of water recycling or stored rainwater for use on
the planned garden areas.
Gibbons St becomes a wind tunnel north of Marian St. There is
discussion about reducing the wind impacts due to, and on, the Gibbon
St frontage. Is there no design available for small wind turbines to
take advantage of this phenomenon? Perhaps this could be a challenge
for the architects and environmental planners, or even those with
ideas at UTS, Sydney University or the UNSW?
Efficient recycling will be an ongoing challenge and ongoing education
should be anticipated.
During construction, there will need to be continual prevention of
spoil and rubbish into the gutters. In a vast majority of cases,
containment of contamination is an initial effort only.
And back to the laundry proposal - are larger washing machines and
clothes driers the best option?
3. Reluctance to pay development contributions:
It would appear that the development is considered a SSD, and that the
controls over this development swing between B2 and B4 zoning. My
interpretation is that there are different regulations for "affordable
rental housing" and boarding houses, and that this development is
seeking to reduce the number of regulations it needs to comply with.
Due to the fact that the development will increase the stock of
affordable housing, albeit for students, a 20% increase in capacity is
allowed. This is a commercial development, and with the increased
capacity comes an ongoing increase in profit. This is further
increased with the proposed reduced room size and lack of private open
space.
My opinion is that all required development contributions should be
paid.
4. Overshadowing of current buildings:
An increased number of apartments at 1 Margaret St will have no direct
"solar access". The proposed development is to the north of these
apartments, with a narrow road separating them.
While the report was prepared by experts, it is hard to conceive how
an 18 story tower block would not have a greater overshadowing impact
on this building.
It is also likely that the overshadowing will negatively impact the
Gibbons St Reserve, especially during the winter months.
5. Impact of increased pedestrians crossing Gibbons St.
It is postulated that this development is an affordable housing
development, specifically targeting students. It is unlikely that
these students will be attending UNSW, more likely UTS, Notre Dame,
Sydney Uni or private colleges within the Sydney CBD. Consequently,
all these students will need to cross Gibbons St. The pedestrian
crossing at the Redfern St/ Gibbons St intersection is currently
congested, with people crossing between cars as the traffic slows.
With an increased number of people crossing, this hazard is going to
increase, as is the potential for an accident, as the footpath on
Gibbons St is narrow adjacent to the railway station.
The structure of the new entrance to Redfern Station is poor to
substandard. Pedestrians heading for the station from Gibbons St clash
with those leaving the station, all on the narrow very busy corner of
Gibbons St and Lawson St. There are also signalised pedestrian traffic
lights at this point, but those waiting to cross just add to the
congestion.
Service vehicles for the units or the commercial properties will need
to use either Gibbons St or Regent St, adding to the already busy
traffic flow.
CONCLUSION:
As a SSD, the proposal should be held to the highest standards in
design, energy efficiency and reduced environmental impacts. From my
reading of the proposal, it is significantly lacking in all these
aspects, and there is a degree of ambiguity which does not bode well
for an optimum result. Consequently, I believe that the proposal
should be withdrawn until all standards have been met, and innovative
initiative shown in achieving the highest standards of design, energy
efficiency and reduced environmental impact.
Beryl Ford
Object
Beryl Ford
Object
Redfern
,
New South Wales
Message
I do not support this proposal.
Educating international students is big business in Sydney as
evidenced by the number of buildings for student accommodating, and
the expansion of buildings within Sydney University grounds and
surrounds.
The increased services that need to accompany high ride development
are never forth coming, indeed funding to health, police, emergency
services is constantly being reduced. City dwellers are already
experiencing increased waiting times in hospital emergency
departments. Much higher levels of people on public transport.
City dwellings have already had large amounts of high rise buildings
in Redfern and surrounds. Again we have seen more foot traffic,
heavier road traffic, congestion on trains and buses.
If there is to be ever increasing numbers of students coming to Sydney
the needs of the university will override the living conditions of
city dwellers who will have heir landscape altered by ever increasing
high rise apartments. The face of Sydney will change not by well
planned, service supported dwellings, but by the profit margins of
universities and developers.
We share the space in Sydney with plant and wildlife so much of this
is being destroyed by concrete and glass.
Perhaps there are other Australian cities that can better accommodate
these students, with the same high level of learning.
Educating international students is big business in Sydney as
evidenced by the number of buildings for student accommodating, and
the expansion of buildings within Sydney University grounds and
surrounds.
The increased services that need to accompany high ride development
are never forth coming, indeed funding to health, police, emergency
services is constantly being reduced. City dwellers are already
experiencing increased waiting times in hospital emergency
departments. Much higher levels of people on public transport.
City dwellings have already had large amounts of high rise buildings
in Redfern and surrounds. Again we have seen more foot traffic,
heavier road traffic, congestion on trains and buses.
If there is to be ever increasing numbers of students coming to Sydney
the needs of the university will override the living conditions of
city dwellers who will have heir landscape altered by ever increasing
high rise apartments. The face of Sydney will change not by well
planned, service supported dwellings, but by the profit margins of
universities and developers.
We share the space in Sydney with plant and wildlife so much of this
is being destroyed by concrete and glass.
Perhaps there are other Australian cities that can better accommodate
these students, with the same high level of learning.
Stephanie Almgren
Object
Stephanie Almgren
Object
Redfern
,
New South Wales
Message
As resident that has just seen yet another approval go ahead with the
Iglu on regent st and now this coming up for approval, enough with the
student housing and affordable housing.
I have concerns with the numbers that will be the bedrooms - fire
hazards, how is this regulated?
What about the height of the building, this will block views that I
currently have and also have "new residents" looking into the
building. Another investor cashing in when the height should remain
the same as the original building and no higher!
The parking situation is already bad, with the stripping of 10 spots
last year on Gibbons st and now the closure of Marian St near the
station - thats a considerable loss, will there be more parking thats
untimed? what are the measures in place?
I wholeheartedly agree with Kelly her concerns are also mine;
- proximity of building works and disruption to the foundations of our
building (massive issues in the past for the street, with already
traffic jams)
- traffic management of the building site during demolition and
construction phase
- general cleanliness of area and buildings during construction phase
given that other buildings have done the same and caused bugs and
rodents to come out of the demo.
- there is already a considerable amount of noise along Gibbons St,
how are you going to reduce this and the impact made on all the
buildings in street.
Iglu on regent st and now this coming up for approval, enough with the
student housing and affordable housing.
I have concerns with the numbers that will be the bedrooms - fire
hazards, how is this regulated?
What about the height of the building, this will block views that I
currently have and also have "new residents" looking into the
building. Another investor cashing in when the height should remain
the same as the original building and no higher!
The parking situation is already bad, with the stripping of 10 spots
last year on Gibbons st and now the closure of Marian St near the
station - thats a considerable loss, will there be more parking thats
untimed? what are the measures in place?
I wholeheartedly agree with Kelly her concerns are also mine;
- proximity of building works and disruption to the foundations of our
building (massive issues in the past for the street, with already
traffic jams)
- traffic management of the building site during demolition and
construction phase
- general cleanliness of area and buildings during construction phase
given that other buildings have done the same and caused bugs and
rodents to come out of the demo.
- there is already a considerable amount of noise along Gibbons St,
how are you going to reduce this and the impact made on all the
buildings in street.
Kelly O'Brien
Object
Kelly O'Brien
Object
Redfern
,
New South Wales
Message
I have concerns relating to the following:
- The dormitory rooms planned for the podium mean high density
bedrooms looking directly into our properties at 1 Margaret st
- The podium height is higher than planning standards
- There is already another property at 80-88 regent st being assesed
for student housing in addition to the newly completed Iglu at 66
regent st. This is already a huge increase in student housing within a
very small area. I agree with Donald Glover's comment that the impact
of current plans should be measured before any more are approved.
- The planning documents show the Podium on Margaret st side being up
to the boundary. Does this mean the building will be even closer to 1
Margaret st than the current building
- This seems to be premium priced student accommodation. How does this
address housing affordability in inner sydney?
- what measures are in place to minimise disruption and noise for the
residents in 1 margaret st?
- what measures can be made to allow sunlight for the residents at 1
margaret st? Is something like the heliostat at central park
chippendale feasible? Based on the plans it seems we will have a
significant decrease in light into our building.
- how will additional parking requirements be met?
- the laneway seems to be only optional at this stage, will there be
an increase to the building size if the laneway is not approved?
- overall it seems to be a very large building proposed for a small
site.
- The dormitory rooms planned for the podium mean high density
bedrooms looking directly into our properties at 1 Margaret st
- The podium height is higher than planning standards
- There is already another property at 80-88 regent st being assesed
for student housing in addition to the newly completed Iglu at 66
regent st. This is already a huge increase in student housing within a
very small area. I agree with Donald Glover's comment that the impact
of current plans should be measured before any more are approved.
- The planning documents show the Podium on Margaret st side being up
to the boundary. Does this mean the building will be even closer to 1
Margaret st than the current building
- This seems to be premium priced student accommodation. How does this
address housing affordability in inner sydney?
- what measures are in place to minimise disruption and noise for the
residents in 1 margaret st?
- what measures can be made to allow sunlight for the residents at 1
margaret st? Is something like the heliostat at central park
chippendale feasible? Based on the plans it seems we will have a
significant decrease in light into our building.
- how will additional parking requirements be met?
- the laneway seems to be only optional at this stage, will there be
an increase to the building size if the laneway is not approved?
- overall it seems to be a very large building proposed for a small
site.
Kath Waples
Object
Kath Waples
Object
Redfern
,
New South Wales
Message
Hi,
I have concerns over the following points:
- number of residents - it is a significant increase on the local area
- security issues given that it is proposed for short term student
rentals who are generally not community minded like apartment owners
- hours of operation of the exterior cafe/business proposed for
William Lane
- substantial reduction in light on my apartment given the proposed 18
levels
- impact on local environment & infrastructure including Policing,
waste management etc
- proximity of building works and disruption to the foundations of our
building (massive issues in the past for our building)
- traffic management of the building site during demolition and
construction phase
- general cleanliness of area and our building during construction
phase given that our building is only a matter of metres away from the
our boundary.
I am happy to provide more information and discuss at any time.
I have concerns over the following points:
- number of residents - it is a significant increase on the local area
- security issues given that it is proposed for short term student
rentals who are generally not community minded like apartment owners
- hours of operation of the exterior cafe/business proposed for
William Lane
- substantial reduction in light on my apartment given the proposed 18
levels
- impact on local environment & infrastructure including Policing,
waste management etc
- proximity of building works and disruption to the foundations of our
building (massive issues in the past for our building)
- traffic management of the building site during demolition and
construction phase
- general cleanliness of area and our building during construction
phase given that our building is only a matter of metres away from the
our boundary.
I am happy to provide more information and discuss at any time.
Jane Seldon
Object
Jane Seldon
Object
Chippendale
,
New South Wales
Message
Good gracious, enough already, there is an overwhelming amount of student
accommodation in this area, much to the detriment of long term
residents and families.
There is not near the amount a recreational space for any more than
already here.
And if the this greedy governments totally overwhelming concept of
what they think is appropriate for Waterloo we shall be the most
overcrowded area in Sydney.
I also see no plans here for either sustainable or low cost housing.
This to me is another greedy grab by developers to not consider the
area but to squeeze every dollar they can for the cheapest possible
outlay.
No matter what you chose to believe there will be extra parking needed
and we have no need for more retail. The cafes that are here are more
than adequate.
Just another grab for high rentals.
Look after the current community, people who have been paying your
rates for years, consider the impact of yet another few hundred
students and if every second one becomes a food courier we are in
trouble.
Students themselves are lovely but we have no facilities left.
Dear Planning Minister, I would like to know what you have learnt
about planning, human factors, demolition, sustainability,
conservation, community needs, recycling, utilities access and over
supply.
Just imagine if your home was inundated in this way how would you
feel.?
accommodation in this area, much to the detriment of long term
residents and families.
There is not near the amount a recreational space for any more than
already here.
And if the this greedy governments totally overwhelming concept of
what they think is appropriate for Waterloo we shall be the most
overcrowded area in Sydney.
I also see no plans here for either sustainable or low cost housing.
This to me is another greedy grab by developers to not consider the
area but to squeeze every dollar they can for the cheapest possible
outlay.
No matter what you chose to believe there will be extra parking needed
and we have no need for more retail. The cafes that are here are more
than adequate.
Just another grab for high rentals.
Look after the current community, people who have been paying your
rates for years, consider the impact of yet another few hundred
students and if every second one becomes a food courier we are in
trouble.
Students themselves are lovely but we have no facilities left.
Dear Planning Minister, I would like to know what you have learnt
about planning, human factors, demolition, sustainability,
conservation, community needs, recycling, utilities access and over
supply.
Just imagine if your home was inundated in this way how would you
feel.?