Office of Environment and Heritage
Comment
Office of Environment and Heritage
Comment
Endeavour Energy
Comment
Endeavour Energy
Comment
Huntingwood
,
New South Wales
Message
See attached
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Not provided
,
New South Wales
Message
PLEASE DO NOT PUBLISH my personal details.
I have not made any reportable political donation.
OBJECTION: SSD 17_8800 PROPOSED PARRAMATTA EELS HOTEL
The concerns I have are as follows:
1. the proposed height is inappropriate and will put at risk the World
Heritage listed Parramatta Park and the Old Government House.
2. the proposal will also put at risk the potential World Heritage
Listing for Parramatta's Female Factory, and the potential of
extending the heritage precinct further.
3. the Visual Impact Analysis identifies the impact the proposal will
have on the Female Factory/Cumberland Hospital site. This is
unacceptable.
4. the proposal makes a number of assumptions that are incorrect.
These include heights for the neighboring heritage precincts, such as
Fleet Street, and the former Cumberland Hospital site. While a master
planning process has been underway for these precincts and the
previous DA withdrawn, recent announcements may see a reduction in the
proposed height controls.
5. the application seeks to justify the height increase by comparing
the height ("RL 75m") with the new Western Sydney Stadium (actually RL
66m), and Urban Growth's plans for North Parramatta. This is
misguided, given the government has announced that the planning
controls are being reviewed for the purpose of considering the
expansion of the University of Sydney's campus at Westmead and
withdrawal of the previous DA adjacent.
6. A Design Excellence Strategy is required to be prepared in
consultation with the Government Architect NSW. However, the report by
the Design Review Panel fails to adequately respond to matters
pertaining to clause 7.10(4), which significance is reinforced. For
example in case, The Uniting Church vs Parramatta City Council [2018]
NSWLEC 158, specifically.
7. The application indicates `significant consultation' has taken
place with the Park's Trust. In addition, a 'representative' needs to
be appointed as an observer on the Design Review Panel for the
project'. However, the involvement of a representative from the Trust,
should not justify the departure from the application meeting the
requirements under local planning controls. (PLEP).
Further, I am concerned about what appears to be a perceived conflict
of interest given the Chair's previous association with the Wanderers,
and current role as Chairperson for the Manly Sea Eagles Leagues Club.
8. The pre-lodgement "community consultation" process did not meet the
requirements set out in the SEARs - i.e. there was no consultation
with the major community group in the area or local residents.
Please keep me informed about the application.
I have not made any reportable political donation.
OBJECTION: SSD 17_8800 PROPOSED PARRAMATTA EELS HOTEL
The concerns I have are as follows:
1. the proposed height is inappropriate and will put at risk the World
Heritage listed Parramatta Park and the Old Government House.
2. the proposal will also put at risk the potential World Heritage
Listing for Parramatta's Female Factory, and the potential of
extending the heritage precinct further.
3. the Visual Impact Analysis identifies the impact the proposal will
have on the Female Factory/Cumberland Hospital site. This is
unacceptable.
4. the proposal makes a number of assumptions that are incorrect.
These include heights for the neighboring heritage precincts, such as
Fleet Street, and the former Cumberland Hospital site. While a master
planning process has been underway for these precincts and the
previous DA withdrawn, recent announcements may see a reduction in the
proposed height controls.
5. the application seeks to justify the height increase by comparing
the height ("RL 75m") with the new Western Sydney Stadium (actually RL
66m), and Urban Growth's plans for North Parramatta. This is
misguided, given the government has announced that the planning
controls are being reviewed for the purpose of considering the
expansion of the University of Sydney's campus at Westmead and
withdrawal of the previous DA adjacent.
6. A Design Excellence Strategy is required to be prepared in
consultation with the Government Architect NSW. However, the report by
the Design Review Panel fails to adequately respond to matters
pertaining to clause 7.10(4), which significance is reinforced. For
example in case, The Uniting Church vs Parramatta City Council [2018]
NSWLEC 158, specifically.
7. The application indicates `significant consultation' has taken
place with the Park's Trust. In addition, a 'representative' needs to
be appointed as an observer on the Design Review Panel for the
project'. However, the involvement of a representative from the Trust,
should not justify the departure from the application meeting the
requirements under local planning controls. (PLEP).
Further, I am concerned about what appears to be a perceived conflict
of interest given the Chair's previous association with the Wanderers,
and current role as Chairperson for the Manly Sea Eagles Leagues Club.
8. The pre-lodgement "community consultation" process did not meet the
requirements set out in the SEARs - i.e. there was no consultation
with the major community group in the area or local residents.
Please keep me informed about the application.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Not Provided
,
New South Wales
Message
PLEASE DO NOT PUBLISH MY PERSONAL DETAILS.
I have not made a reportable political donation.
SSD 17_8800 PROPOSED PARRAMATTA EELS HOTEL
I object to the proposed application. My concerns include:
The area of the proposed Eels Hotel/Function Centre is on public land
and should not be used for any form of commercial enterprise,
Parramatta is in need of more green open space NOT less
* The proposed height is inappropriate and visually impacts World
Heritage listed Parramatta Park and the old Government House. Further,
given the proposed scale, the proposal adversely impacts the national
heritage values for the Female Factory and jeopardises its potential
World Heritage Listing, as well as potential to extend the heritage
precinct further into the Cumberland Heritage estate. Moreover, the
Visual Impact Analysis highlights the impact the proposal will have on
the Female Factory/Cumberland Hospital site. This is totally
unacceptable. Further, I note that the massing is not well shown on
some images making it difficult for many to properly understand the
impact.
* The proposal makes a number of assumptions that are incorrect. This
includes heights for the neighbouring heritage precincts, such as
Fleet Street, and the former Cumberland Hospital site, and includes
plans previously proposed by Urban Growth are included. Given there is
now a new master planning process underway for these precincts
following recent announcements by the government and the University of
Sydney, this may well see a reduction in the proposed height controls.
Hence to assume these assumptions are a given is misleading.
* A Design Excellence Strategy is required to be prepared in
consultation with the Government Architect NSW. However, the Design
Review Panel's report fails to properly respond to matters pertaining
to clause 7.10(4), which significance is reinforced in case, The
Uniting Church vs Parramatta City Council [2018] NSWLEC 158,
specifically
* The application indicates `significant consultation' has taken place
with the Park's Trust. In addition, a 'representative' needs to be
appointed as an observer on the Design Review Panel for the project'.
However, the involvement of a representative from the Trust, should
not justify the departure from the applicant meeting requirements
under local planning controls. (PLEP). Further, I am concerned about
what appears to be a perceived conflict of interest given the Chair's
previous association with the Wanderers, and current role as
Chairperson for the Manly Sea Eagles.
* The pre-lodgement community consultation process did not meet the
requirements set out in the SEARs; i.e. there was no consultation with
the major community group in the area or local residents.
In summary, the application is not in the public interest and should
be rejected.
Please keep me informed about this application.
I have not made a reportable political donation.
SSD 17_8800 PROPOSED PARRAMATTA EELS HOTEL
I object to the proposed application. My concerns include:
The area of the proposed Eels Hotel/Function Centre is on public land
and should not be used for any form of commercial enterprise,
Parramatta is in need of more green open space NOT less
* The proposed height is inappropriate and visually impacts World
Heritage listed Parramatta Park and the old Government House. Further,
given the proposed scale, the proposal adversely impacts the national
heritage values for the Female Factory and jeopardises its potential
World Heritage Listing, as well as potential to extend the heritage
precinct further into the Cumberland Heritage estate. Moreover, the
Visual Impact Analysis highlights the impact the proposal will have on
the Female Factory/Cumberland Hospital site. This is totally
unacceptable. Further, I note that the massing is not well shown on
some images making it difficult for many to properly understand the
impact.
* The proposal makes a number of assumptions that are incorrect. This
includes heights for the neighbouring heritage precincts, such as
Fleet Street, and the former Cumberland Hospital site, and includes
plans previously proposed by Urban Growth are included. Given there is
now a new master planning process underway for these precincts
following recent announcements by the government and the University of
Sydney, this may well see a reduction in the proposed height controls.
Hence to assume these assumptions are a given is misleading.
* A Design Excellence Strategy is required to be prepared in
consultation with the Government Architect NSW. However, the Design
Review Panel's report fails to properly respond to matters pertaining
to clause 7.10(4), which significance is reinforced in case, The
Uniting Church vs Parramatta City Council [2018] NSWLEC 158,
specifically
* The application indicates `significant consultation' has taken place
with the Park's Trust. In addition, a 'representative' needs to be
appointed as an observer on the Design Review Panel for the project'.
However, the involvement of a representative from the Trust, should
not justify the departure from the applicant meeting requirements
under local planning controls. (PLEP). Further, I am concerned about
what appears to be a perceived conflict of interest given the Chair's
previous association with the Wanderers, and current role as
Chairperson for the Manly Sea Eagles.
* The pre-lodgement community consultation process did not meet the
requirements set out in the SEARs; i.e. there was no consultation with
the major community group in the area or local residents.
In summary, the application is not in the public interest and should
be rejected.
Please keep me informed about this application.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
not provided
,
New South Wales
Message
PLEASE DO NOT PUBLISH MY PERSONAL DETAILS.
I have not made a reportable political donation.
SSD 17_8800 PROPOSED PARRAMATTA EELS HOTEL
I object to the proposed application. My concerns include:
I feel very strongly that public land is being used by private
interests for any use apart from a Swimming centre that would be used
by the whole community for their health and well being.
* The proposed height is inappropriate and visually impacts World
Heritage listed Parramatta Park and the old Government House. Further,
given the proposed scale, the proposal adversely impacts the national
heritage values for the Female Factory and jeopardises its potential
World Heritage Listing, as well as potential to extend the heritage
precinct further into the Cumberland Heritage estate. Moreover, the
Visual Impact Analysis highlights the impact the proposal will have on
the Female Factory/Cumberland Hospital site. This is totally
unacceptable. Further, I note that the massing is not well shown on
some images making it difficult for many to properly understand the
impact.
* The proposal makes a number of assumptions that are incorrect. This
includes heights for the neighbouring heritage precincts, such as
Fleet Street, and the former Cumberland Hospital site, and includes
plans previously proposed by Urban Growth are included. Given there is
now a new master planning process underway for these precincts
following recent announcements by the government and the University of
Sydney, this may well see a reduction in the proposed height controls.
Hence to assume these assumptions are a given is misleading.
* A Design Excellence Strategy is required to be prepared in
consultation with the Government Architect NSW. However, the Design
Review Panel's report fails to properly respond to matters pertaining
to clause 7.10(4), which significance is reinforced in case, The
Uniting Church vs Parramatta City Council [2018] NSWLEC 158,
specifically
* The application indicates `significant consultation' has taken place
with the Park's Trust. In addition, a 'representative' needs to be
appointed as an observer on the Design Review Panel for the project'.
However, the involvement of a representative from the Trust, should
not justify the departure from the applicant meeting requirements
under local planning controls. (PLEP). Further, I am concerned about
what appears to be a perceived conflict of interest given the Chair's
previous association with the Wanderers, and current role as
Chairperson for the Manly Sea Eagles.
* The pre-lodgement community consultation process did not meet the
requirements set out in the SEARs; i.e. there was no consultation with
the major community group in the area or local residents.
In summary, the application is not in the public interest and should
be rejected.
Please keep me informed about this application.
I have not made a reportable political donation.
SSD 17_8800 PROPOSED PARRAMATTA EELS HOTEL
I object to the proposed application. My concerns include:
I feel very strongly that public land is being used by private
interests for any use apart from a Swimming centre that would be used
by the whole community for their health and well being.
* The proposed height is inappropriate and visually impacts World
Heritage listed Parramatta Park and the old Government House. Further,
given the proposed scale, the proposal adversely impacts the national
heritage values for the Female Factory and jeopardises its potential
World Heritage Listing, as well as potential to extend the heritage
precinct further into the Cumberland Heritage estate. Moreover, the
Visual Impact Analysis highlights the impact the proposal will have on
the Female Factory/Cumberland Hospital site. This is totally
unacceptable. Further, I note that the massing is not well shown on
some images making it difficult for many to properly understand the
impact.
* The proposal makes a number of assumptions that are incorrect. This
includes heights for the neighbouring heritage precincts, such as
Fleet Street, and the former Cumberland Hospital site, and includes
plans previously proposed by Urban Growth are included. Given there is
now a new master planning process underway for these precincts
following recent announcements by the government and the University of
Sydney, this may well see a reduction in the proposed height controls.
Hence to assume these assumptions are a given is misleading.
* A Design Excellence Strategy is required to be prepared in
consultation with the Government Architect NSW. However, the Design
Review Panel's report fails to properly respond to matters pertaining
to clause 7.10(4), which significance is reinforced in case, The
Uniting Church vs Parramatta City Council [2018] NSWLEC 158,
specifically
* The application indicates `significant consultation' has taken place
with the Park's Trust. In addition, a 'representative' needs to be
appointed as an observer on the Design Review Panel for the project'.
However, the involvement of a representative from the Trust, should
not justify the departure from the applicant meeting requirements
under local planning controls. (PLEP). Further, I am concerned about
what appears to be a perceived conflict of interest given the Chair's
previous association with the Wanderers, and current role as
Chairperson for the Manly Sea Eagles.
* The pre-lodgement community consultation process did not meet the
requirements set out in the SEARs; i.e. there was no consultation with
the major community group in the area or local residents.
In summary, the application is not in the public interest and should
be rejected.
Please keep me informed about this application.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Guildford
,
New South Wales
Message
PLEASE DO NOT PUBLISH MY PERSONAL DETAILS.
I have not made a reportable political donation.
SSD 17_8800 PROPOSED PARRAMATTA EELS HOTEL
I object to the proposed application. My concerns include:
* The proposed height is inappropriate and visually impacts World
Heritage listed Parramatta Park and the old Government House. Further,
given the proposed scale, the proposal adversely impacts the national
heritage values for the Female Factory and jeopardizes its potential
World Heritage Listing, as well as potential to extend the heritage
precinct further into the Cumberland Heritage estate. It astonish me
that the government doesn't recognizes it's on Parramatta LEP to
protect Old Government House conditions World Heritage Listing
conditions. Moreover, the Visual Impact Analysis highlights the impact
the proposal will have on the Female Factory/Cumberland Hospital
site.Were is the change of the LEP of the Parramatta Female Factory
National Heritage Listing. This is totally unacceptable. Further, I
note that the massing is not well shown on some images making it
difficult for many to properly understand the impact.
* The proposal makes a number of assumptions that are incorrect. This
includes heights for the neighbouring heritage precincts, such as
Fleet Street, and the former Cumberland Hospital site, and includes
plans previously proposed by Urban Growth are included. Given there is
now a new master planning process underway for these precincts
following recent announcements by the government and the University of
Sydney, this may well see a reduction in the proposed height controls.
Hence to assume these assumptions are a given is misleading.
* A Design Excellence Strategy is required to be prepared in
consultation with the Government Architect NSW. However, the Design
Review Panel's report fails to properly respond to matters pertaining
to clause 7.10(4), which significance is reinforced in case, The
Uniting Church vs Parramatta City Council [2018] NSWLEC 158,
specifically
* The application indicates `significant consultation' has taken place
with the Park's Trust. In addition, a 'representative' needs to be
appointed as an observer on the Design Review Panel for the project'.
However, the involvement of a representative from the Trust, should
not justify the departure from the applicant meeting requirements
under local planning controls. (PLEP). Further, I am concerned about
what appears to be a perceived conflict of interest given the Chair's
previous association with the Wanderers, and current role as
Chairperson for the Manly Sea Eagles.
* The pre-lodgement community consultation process did not meet the
requirements set out in the SEARs; i.e. there was no consultation with
the major community group in the area or local residents.
In summary, the application is not in the public interest and should
be rejected.
Please keep me informed about this application.
I have not made a reportable political donation.
SSD 17_8800 PROPOSED PARRAMATTA EELS HOTEL
I object to the proposed application. My concerns include:
* The proposed height is inappropriate and visually impacts World
Heritage listed Parramatta Park and the old Government House. Further,
given the proposed scale, the proposal adversely impacts the national
heritage values for the Female Factory and jeopardizes its potential
World Heritage Listing, as well as potential to extend the heritage
precinct further into the Cumberland Heritage estate. It astonish me
that the government doesn't recognizes it's on Parramatta LEP to
protect Old Government House conditions World Heritage Listing
conditions. Moreover, the Visual Impact Analysis highlights the impact
the proposal will have on the Female Factory/Cumberland Hospital
site.Were is the change of the LEP of the Parramatta Female Factory
National Heritage Listing. This is totally unacceptable. Further, I
note that the massing is not well shown on some images making it
difficult for many to properly understand the impact.
* The proposal makes a number of assumptions that are incorrect. This
includes heights for the neighbouring heritage precincts, such as
Fleet Street, and the former Cumberland Hospital site, and includes
plans previously proposed by Urban Growth are included. Given there is
now a new master planning process underway for these precincts
following recent announcements by the government and the University of
Sydney, this may well see a reduction in the proposed height controls.
Hence to assume these assumptions are a given is misleading.
* A Design Excellence Strategy is required to be prepared in
consultation with the Government Architect NSW. However, the Design
Review Panel's report fails to properly respond to matters pertaining
to clause 7.10(4), which significance is reinforced in case, The
Uniting Church vs Parramatta City Council [2018] NSWLEC 158,
specifically
* The application indicates `significant consultation' has taken place
with the Park's Trust. In addition, a 'representative' needs to be
appointed as an observer on the Design Review Panel for the project'.
However, the involvement of a representative from the Trust, should
not justify the departure from the applicant meeting requirements
under local planning controls. (PLEP). Further, I am concerned about
what appears to be a perceived conflict of interest given the Chair's
previous association with the Wanderers, and current role as
Chairperson for the Manly Sea Eagles.
* The pre-lodgement community consultation process did not meet the
requirements set out in the SEARs; i.e. there was no consultation with
the major community group in the area or local residents.
In summary, the application is not in the public interest and should
be rejected.
Please keep me informed about this application.