I object to the following development on several grounds:

Noise - I live less than 100 metres from the proposed hotel - I believe the rooftop terrace should either be removed or face INTO the Racecourse as this will help ameliorate noise from the terrace.

Parking - the hotel has 170 rooms and far less parking spaces. There is already no parking in the area due to TAFE, residents and on Race days, Racecourse parking.

Anti-social behaviour - the AJC has proven it is unable to manage anti-social behaviour on Race Days. This will only increase the number of days when this occurs.

Open Space - the land is currently designated open space under Randwick Council's LEP. This contravenes that.

This is just a way for the Racecourse to have a vast "pub" approved on its grounds - this will not benefit the community. When does adding a large hotel full of drunks improve the life of local residents??

Discusting.
A glass box on stilts, that overshadowes the heritage stand.
It is too high & out of place.

I had a look at the proposal and while I don't mind the concept for a hotel in that location, I find the look of the building too imposing, especially in the proposed location. I will be passing it frequently driving along Alison Road.

While I don't mind the shape of the main hotel building, with the laminated wall, I don't like the elevation above the ground - this is unnecessary. It adds unnecessary height and imposition. It also looks top heavy, especially overlooking the main road.

Good proposal. WIll revitalise the racecourse and somewhat alleviate the shortage of hotel rooms in Sydney.

The reporting significantly underplays the value of the critically endangered woodland which is to be removed. It is

understandable for proponent-commissioned ecological assessments to under-report vegetation viability, condition &

extent. However the submitted reporting also contains serious factual errors including comment that Bursaria spinosa

is indicative of disturbed habitats (p26; the opposite is the case) and that Eucalyptus acmenoides is a common tree

species on site (if this species is present at all it is a regional anomaly and of conservation significance). The assessment in general fails to consider that the vegetation at stake is critically endangered - the benchmark for it's protection and restoration must be commesuarately high.

The project will remove vegetation within areas covered by the Growth Centres Biodiversity Certificaton Order and areas outside; it will also impact on Cumberland Plain Woodland that meets the Federal assessment benchmarks, and woodland which meets the State benchmarks. It is those areas outside Certification and meeting the Federal benchmarks which are the subject of the present assessment and this submission. These constitute 2.87 hectares of Cumberland Plain Woodland.

An 'offset' has been proposed for the vegetation loss within the Growth Centres Area (however as neither in-perpetuity protection or a trust fund for restoration of this area are proposed, this does not actually constitute an offset). However no offset has been proposed for the 2.87 hectares of Cumberland Plain Woodland loss which is the subject of the present assessment.

A genuine offset incorporating on-title permanent protection and an in-perpetuity fund for vegetation maintenance is required to achieve a maintain-or-improve outcome for the 2.87 hectares of Cumberland Plain Woodland removed outside the Growth Centres. The minimum ratio of vegetation lost to vegetation restored ever found to maintain biodiversity values in Australia by peer-reviewed research is 1:20. This reflects the severity of impact that vegetation loss has on even highly degraded ecosystems. As such a minimum offset area of 57.4 hectares is required to meet a maintain-or-improve outcome for Cumberland Plain Woodland. This is additional to the offset proposed for offseting the vegetation lost within the growth centre.

I note that there is sufficient Cumberland Plain Woodland on this property to provide the land for such an offset (refer aerial Figure 2-2 EIS volume 1). This includes the so-called 'moderate condition CPW in non-certified areas in south-west of Study Area' shown on page 478, which is in fact high condition woodland.

When will the critically endangered Cumberland Plain Woodland finally be protected? If this patch must be destroyed the applicant must be required to provide a sufficiently sized offset, calculated on the research evidence of 1:20 minimum ratios and not on political expediency.

I am a local Newtown resident, and object to the current development plans for SSD5708, North Eveleigh Affordable Housing Project as per my attached submission.

please see attached pdf file.